I went with the Sigma 28mm f/1.4 Art. I couldn't accept the price for the RF 24mm, at almost 800€. The Sigma was cheaper, opens up to f/1.4 and is a weather sealed lens. I replaced my Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art with the 28mm.
The sigma 35 mm art was crap. I had one with bad and unreliable auto focus for dslr. I sent it back to sigma for repair, but it didn't change much. After that I bought the calibration dock, which didn't helped. Never sigma lenses again
@@airb1976 That was a common theme with 3rd party lenses mounted on DSLRs, but we've had Canon full frame mirrorless cameras for 4 years now, so I really think it's not an issue anymore. The 35mm 1.4 Art is a lovely lens, that I used for a few years, mostly on DSLR cameras, and I had it with my R6 for the past year and a half or so, but the truth is that I didn't use it much over the last ~3 years (I bought it over 5 years ago). If I was looking for a 35mm lens now, for a Canon mirrorless camera, the 35mm Art would be my first option, instead of the RF 35 1.8. My gear headed inner self regrets selling that 35mm Art, but the reasonable part of me knows it was the best move. Now I'm pairing the 28mm Art with the 50mm Art (I had three Art prime lenses for some time).
The 28mm Art is a way sharper lens compared to these RF primes. It has a nice case and free hood included. It focuses faster. It allows me to use the drop in filter adapter. At 28mm ILIS doesn't give you a whole lot more than IBIS alone. For me 24mm in a prime is often too wide, whereas 35mm isn't zoomed in enough and not wide enough at the same time. It's a horrible compromise to me. I prefer to have a 28mm Art and a 50mm Art. 50mm can get you decent portraits, using a 35mm the results never truly wows me. For me the biggest benefit of the RF mount is making those both affordable and stellar Art lenses working beautifully with the adapter without any inconsistencies or whatsoever.
@@joostkuijper6272 The RF mount is very powerful with the right lenses, but these RF consumer grade options don't really take advantage of the new interface, because these STM motors aren't fast enough. If you use RF L lenses with nano USM motors you'll see a significant improvement on what already was very good with previous USM and HSM motors - they're incredible. I fully agree with you on the 24 vs 28 vs 35 vs 50 debate, though, and that's why I replaced my 35mm with the 28.
Good news! I have resisted the pre order temptation at AUD $999 and a short month later, just today I found it is available at a major retailer in stock for $849. That is $150 off or 15% off within a month of announcement. I have ordered one. At around $499 USD it is not a bad choice in my opinion
I own the 24, 35, 50 and 85 (standard primes, not L) and I think they are all fantastic, though I wish the 50 had IS even if it cost a bit more. Usually I just carry 2 primes either the 24 and 50 or more often the 35 and 85. The focal length of the lenses a person already owns should be taken in to consideration when looking at 24 vs 35 as they are both great.
The RF 1.8 prime lineup is great, very useful, compact, versatile. This is done via not implementing all those shiny bells and whistles "purists" want to have in lenses ;-) Those lenses are made just for creative work in mind.
For my R6 M2, I use an RF 50mm f/1.8 which I consider wide angle. And for tighter portraits I use an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III. But I intend to sell it and buy the RF 85mm f/2. I want something lighter. 50mm + 85mm.
I'm not sure if we can call that 24mm f1.8 a no-brainer considering if the mount was open the Sigma 24mm f2 would have been a very better value for the same price while the latter is superior in every single aspect with the exception of the macro.
Or.... having the 16 and the 50 little RF lenses. ;-) great combo for travelling on a full frame body. next to the 100-400 perhaps 5.6-8.0 RF. Thanks for your reviews, they have helped me. :-) Greetings from the Netherlands, Onno Nugteren.
wow 24mm really excels in the center compared to 35, suppose that 5yr difference in production comes with a payoff. editing images from the 35 has always came with a touch of disappointment in IQ, the 24mm might have just enough of a bump in clarity to help rectify this. for anyone researching these lenses for video, it's noteworthy that the 24mm has focus breathing correction with new FW update, whereas the 35 does not. small detail, but this channel thrives on specifics and wanted to chime in with this deeply burried factoid I recently learned.👍 my quick recap of the 35 for anyone shopping/researching: do not get your hopes up if you shoot a lot of L-glass; where these excel is portability, very decent look/subject separation, and the macro is bloody useful to diversify your collection of shots without changing lenses. I use this on the R62 when wife and I are attending a charity event or weekend markets or something, and its perfect for these tasks where I want better-than-iphone photos but do not want to lug around the 28-70 or 50 1.2 or something. besides casual shooting, its been great for B or C-cam interview work i do, and also utilize this lens a lot for timelapses in the f2-f3.5 range. it certainly earns its keep, though for the $300 i paid for it is not hard to do. I don't trust the AF for anything important though, it can be indecisive & twitchy in lowlight. Daylight helps, but there's been just enough times where the AF in broad daylight has committed to something other that what I intended, overall i think this is the downfall of STM motors, esp when you're used to dual nano AF. TLDR: working pros proceed with caution when expecting pro results from this lens. if you're a hobbyist and looking to yield a better look or upgrade an aging Tamron zoom, $250-300 range is a good value imo. seeing some of these in the $500-600 range new is hard to commit too imo, would highly consider EF 1.4 for about the same money, if you want a more defined look, better AF, and that famous L-glass pop to your images. The price drop on premier EF glass the last couple years is something you do not want to sleep on. long comment here, but I'm overcaffinated and taking a break from editing hahaaa. thanks again Christopher for all the work you do on this channel 👌
Thank you for your thoughts. My husband just surprised me with the Canon R8 (upgrading from the 7D), and I'm trying to decide what will be my first RF lens (that isn't the stock lens). I'm planning on getting the EF to RF adapter since I have the 100mm macro L, so I may look into more EF L lenses over the RF... Decisions, decisions.
@@shutterbird13 lot of variables and depends on what you shoot, but in the $700-800 range the 24-240 is a cool RF starter lens. won't be great in low light, but highly convenient, pretty sharp for daylight shoots, and the IS is honestly pretty incredible. i think there's a lot of value in the 70-200 f4 if you want better performance. such a great and portable little lens. for about the same money, there's an EF lens that is unlike most others .. the 28-300. it's larger and requires adapter, but covers a lot of ground and can be had for ~1/3 the cost they used to be new. lot of great ones to choose from, but without knowing what budget is and what you're going to be shooting most, pretty difficult to make a specific reccomendation.
I have a Sigma 18-35 and after watching Chris reviews when the Sigma 18-35 paired with a Canon EOS R7, I sold it and got a Tamron 35mm f1.4. I'm planning to buy this RF 24mm once I purchase a Canon EOS R7 from an EOS 77d.
I would answer the question with an other question. Witch other lens will you buy for combination? RF16 + RF35 or the RF24 + RF50? But in real I like to have the combination 16 + 35 + 50. So for me is the 24 useless if I really need the angle I can use the 24-105 with lower light,...
24mm its give interesting photos to the Subject because of dynamic background or wide background shot.. combination with 85mm F2 IS Micro For Closer Micro Detail Shot and Nice Bokeh... to the subject we can get variety of photos... but 24mm I think Sigma the way to go it's better if is 1.4 I can give a little or enough bokeh... than a 1. 8 almost no bokeh u get when u shot in outdoor when you want to create composition.. add a beautiful dynamic background to the Subject...
I consider 35mm looks better on protrait, however, I am using an APS C camera (R7 more specifically saying), should I consider getting a 24mm lens when taking the crop x1.6 into account? (sorry for being a newbie on photographing)
Hello. What are the lenses like at F11 in the corners. To use them for more of a landscape lens. Thanks for postings another RF 24 related video. Most likely buying this lens as I already all the RF non L lenses. And a few Ls too.
I'm considering purchasing the RF 24mm 1.8 to pair with my Rf 50mm 1.8 when I want a lightweight pairing. I already have an EF 35mm Tamron f1.4 and the RF 85mm 1.2. I was thinking about replacing the Tamron with the RF 35mm but I think it makes more sense to have a heavier, higher quality pairing with the Tamron 35m and RF 85mm and then a 'budget' pairing with the 24mm and 50mm f1.8 lenses when I'm travelling or I don't require higher IQ.
Would like your bank balance! At this stage, making do with my EF glass, including several L series I just can't afford in RF system. Canon adapter works very well. Will see what future brings as to 3rd party glass, really, very early days so far.
@@robertcudlipp3426 - I am not upgrading my EF L lenses - the RF equivalents might be marginally better in a number of respects but in the main the EF lenses do the job well - and I'm not bothered about using an adapter.
I have canon R10 with RF 50mm 1.8, shooting in tattoo studio. I need more wideangle lens. Not sure which one would be better for indoor tattoo shots(both photo/video). 35 or 24 ?
I think it's time for a next video with the RF 28mm f/2.8 stm thrown into the mix.... :-) It's always funny to see how Canon crowds the 24-35mm range with a lot of options whereas the 50mm really is the stepchild with either the so so budget double gauss or the crazy heavy expensive and yet not very fast focusing f/1.2 L...... It would be just so nice to combine the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM with the RF 28mm f/2.8. I'd love to see an interchangeable mount camera for RF and FE..... Or.... hey, maybe Canon could just design an RF 50mm f/1.4 USM themselves? A compact 85mm f/1.4 USM - focusing better than the f/2.0 stm - wouldn't hurt either. All funny options, those little 24-35mm primes, but adapting the EF options isn't creating big combos anyway, so maybe it's time to give the meat and potatoes portrait focal lengths some love?
Howdy, Chris. Would you have any interest in reviewing the AstrHori 27mm f/2.8? I recently found out about it and I think it's an interesting lens. It's incredibly cheap (about 50 USD) and offers an apsc image circle. It can focus but it has a fixed aperture, and it's very tiny. With that price and small size it could be good for travel.
I bought Canon r10 (aps-c) and just wondering is it a good idea to buy this 35mm lens or go with 24mm one(24mmx1.6=38mm) what do you think? Thanks for wideo 👍
My favorite focal length in APS-C is 30-35mm (50mm on full frame). I just find it great for general use. You should use your kit lens for a while and then check your most used focal length. That way you will know what do you prefer. By the way, the Sigma prime lenses for RF are just around the corner. I would advice you to wait for those, as they are known to be cheaper and of great quality.
Hello Mr. Christopher Frost. Can you make a review of the new Sony 28-60mm lens? I am interested to know its optical performance compared to the old Sony 28-70mm kit lens.
hi I have a question I want to buy the RF 35mm f1.8 lens or the 50mm f1.8 for portrait and macro photography but I am not sure which is best for me I use the Canon R7 with the kit lens of 18-150mm
RF 35 mm: "The inner barrel extends by around 19mm, or three-quarters of an inch, when set to its closest focusing distance of 17cm." - That is the reason that I'll never replace my EF 35 mm f/2 IS.
I just ordered an full spectrum Canon RP from Kolari vision. Their website could use some updating. They don't even have any descriptions on some of their filters. But I did find it interesting that most, but not all, RF lenses have an internal IR LED and so aren't usable for long exposures. I was thinking about at least testing my RF lenses for that and telling Kolari vision they need to update their list of which RF lenses are suitable and which aren't
Yes. The only difference is that the soft edges would be cropped and so not an issue, like on the full frames. Your software should correct the distortion with the correct camera profile. I have the 35mm on a cropped sensor and the image is flat and lifeless. Very boring lens. I’ll sell it and get the 24mm.
here for the example what is shown in this video, it is mostly not the lens that distorts the face (barrel distortion). it is the distance (perspective distortion). if you shoot from same distance with both lenses and crop the 24mm image to look like 35mm, you will see almost no difference. Edit: here is a very good video showing what I mean. ua-cam.com/video/_TTXY1Se0eg/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Fstoppers
I haven't seen the video yet, but why one should been hesitant between two tottaly different focal length lenses which are only alike in build? Does it mean we should expect such an odd comparison for every other focal lengths by any brands? There will a ton! These 2 lenses differ basically due to their different nation of their focal length.
the 24mm is looking better optimized for APS-C as well and the 35mm is more targeted at full frame i guess, considering the performance on center where most of the APS-C frame is.
Only APS-C lenses are optimized for APS-C. After all there is a huge part of the optics being wasted on APS-C and you only are capturing less of half the detail the lens is producing.
Would've been nice if they offered some kind of weather and dust resistance. As it stands they're too expensive for what they are (cheapo plastic and very software corrected optics) and there is no step up from them except £1,5k+ L lenses... Which are occasionally also very software corrected despite their cost (ex: the 14-35mm).
In your portrait comparison you come dangerously close to stating that a 24mm lens by its nature distorts portraits more. This is not the case, as the exaggeration in your features is due to the fact that you framed yourself the same, and therefore we’re much closer to the camera in the 24mm shot. It’s this distance to subject that changes the perspective, not the focal length. Take environmental portraits with more setting and the person smaller in frame and you will get similar distortion (with different framing of course.)
Why should the photographer compromise on composition? If he/she wants to compose the frame such that the face fills a specific percentage, they will need to live with the facial distortion of the 24mm or else use the 35mm. People generally frame based on placement and size of the subject, not by walking backwards until facial distortion is minimized. If the photographer must shrink the subject to eliminate distortion, then you are applying a severe limitation to the creative process. Your suggestion makes no sense because you are asking the photographer to take a different picture.
This is bad idea IMO. You will loose wide angle. Also 24-105STM is not very sharp and it will show badly on 32Mpx crop sensor. R7 deserve better 😉 (but unfortunately Canon offer only cheap kitlenses). Best bet is 18-150 so far.
Phones have long distorted faces and we’ve all been accustomed to that look. 24mm is fine for portraits because of this, and much more versatile than 35mm
Canon: Here's an EF to RF adapter. You don't need to spend a single dollar replacing your lenses. Our full catalogue of EF lenses and those made by everyone else will work seamlessly on our new mirrorless cameras. All those highly praised and beloved lenses made by us, Sigma, Tamron, etc won't be left behind. We even found ways to improve them if you want. You: You greedy bastards!
@N578MD The mount is just the way connect the lens to the camera body. The lens is just a way to get light to the sensor. A sharp EF lens with an EF mount or a sharp RF mount lens, it makes no difference. If an EF was sharp and quick to focus before, it's sharp and quick to focus still. Most of the benefit of the R system is in the body of the camera. These complaints are almost as bad as people complaining about plastic mounts on lenses so light that adding a metal mount doesn't add any benefit and only adds to the cost.
@n578md2 But still. Equally good EF and RF lenses are both equally good on RF mount. Mount adapter does not deteriorate picture quality. The AF and IS, however, might be the other story.
@@muttishelfer9122 The only 24mm 1.8 stabilized lens in the world is this one, and it has a lot of quality, of course Sigma has better quality and better F-Stop, but this is about needs like IS, not everything is about sharpness or low light performance.
The EF 35 f2 is not better than the RF 35 1.8. Which EF version are you talking about? I own the RF 35 1.8, 50 1.8, and 85 f2, and they are all really nice lenses, especially the 35.
![Best PRIME LENS for STREET PHOTOGRAPHY? [24mm vs 35mm vs 50mm]](/img/n.gif)
I went for the 24mm as I use the rf 50 1.2 for a lot of my shots so it made sense. It’s a cool lens, really happy with it
Thats a good point right there 📸
I went with the Sigma 28mm f/1.4 Art. I couldn't accept the price for the RF 24mm, at almost 800€. The Sigma was cheaper, opens up to f/1.4 and is a weather sealed lens. I replaced my Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art with the 28mm.
The sigma 35 mm art was crap. I had one with bad and unreliable auto focus for dslr. I sent it back to sigma for repair, but it didn't change much. After that I bought the calibration dock, which didn't helped. Never sigma lenses again
@@airb1976 That was a common theme with 3rd party lenses mounted on DSLRs, but we've had Canon full frame mirrorless cameras for 4 years now, so I really think it's not an issue anymore.
The 35mm 1.4 Art is a lovely lens, that I used for a few years, mostly on DSLR cameras, and I had it with my R6 for the past year and a half or so, but the truth is that I didn't use it much over the last ~3 years (I bought it over 5 years ago). If I was looking for a 35mm lens now, for a Canon mirrorless camera, the 35mm Art would be my first option, instead of the RF 35 1.8.
My gear headed inner self regrets selling that 35mm Art, but the reasonable part of me knows it was the best move.
Now I'm pairing the 28mm Art with the 50mm Art (I had three Art prime lenses for some time).
The 28mm Art is a way sharper lens compared to these RF primes. It has a nice case and free hood included. It focuses faster. It allows me to use the drop in filter adapter. At 28mm ILIS doesn't give you a whole lot more than IBIS alone. For me 24mm in a prime is often too wide, whereas 35mm isn't zoomed in enough and not wide enough at the same time. It's a horrible compromise to me. I prefer to have a 28mm Art and a 50mm Art. 50mm can get you decent portraits, using a 35mm the results never truly wows me.
For me the biggest benefit of the RF mount is making those both affordable and stellar Art lenses working beautifully with the adapter without any inconsistencies or whatsoever.
@@joostkuijper6272 The RF mount is very powerful with the right lenses, but these RF consumer grade options don't really take advantage of the new interface, because these STM motors aren't fast enough. If you use RF L lenses with nano USM motors you'll see a significant improvement on what already was very good with previous USM and HSM motors - they're incredible.
I fully agree with you on the 24 vs 28 vs 35 vs 50 debate, though, and that's why I replaced my 35mm with the 28.
@@airb1976 Regrettably, your experience does not accord with mine, and many other Sigma users, on various platforms.
Good news! I have resisted the pre order temptation at AUD $999 and a short month later, just today I found it is available at a major retailer in stock for $849. That is $150 off or 15% off within a month of announcement. I have ordered one. At around $499 USD it is not a bad choice in my opinion
Wow, awesome! Happy shooting!
The FOV of the 24 on an R7 is perfect for walking around.
Finally, I hope you have solved my puzzle. I was confused about 24 / 35 mm. I go with Canon RF 24MM.
I own the 24, 35, 50 and 85 (standard primes, not L) and I think they are all fantastic, though I wish the 50 had IS even if it cost a bit more. Usually I just carry 2 primes either the 24 and 50 or more often the 35 and 85. The focal length of the lenses a person already owns should be taken in to consideration when looking at 24 vs 35 as they are both great.
The RF 1.8 prime lineup is great, very useful, compact, versatile.
This is done via not implementing all those shiny bells and whistles "purists" want to have in lenses ;-)
Those lenses are made just for creative work in mind.
For my R6 M2, I use an RF 50mm f/1.8 which I consider wide angle. And for tighter portraits I use an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III. But I intend to sell it and buy the RF 85mm f/2. I want something lighter. 50mm + 85mm.
im happy with the ancient EF 28mm f/1.8 because its a happy medium between 24mm and 35mm
Listening your voice since last around 10 years.. but saw your face for the first time.. @2:13 😅
A RF 28mm would be nice
I'm not sure if we can call that 24mm f1.8 a no-brainer considering if the mount was open the Sigma 24mm f2 would have been a very better value for the same price while the latter is superior in every single aspect with the exception of the macro.
R and RP don't have IBIS so IS is still a useful feature
Comparing a real lens to an imaginary lens is bonkers logic.
@@frankluo230R8 same story.
Or.... having the 16 and the 50 little RF lenses. ;-) great combo for travelling on a full frame body. next to the 100-400 perhaps 5.6-8.0 RF. Thanks for your reviews, they have helped me. :-) Greetings from the Netherlands, Onno Nugteren.
wow 24mm really excels in the center compared to 35, suppose that 5yr difference in production comes with a payoff. editing images from the 35 has always came with a touch of disappointment in IQ, the 24mm might have just enough of a bump in clarity to help rectify this.
for anyone researching these lenses for video, it's noteworthy that the 24mm has focus breathing correction with new FW update, whereas the 35 does not. small detail, but this channel thrives on specifics and wanted to chime in with this deeply burried factoid I recently learned.👍
my quick recap of the 35 for anyone shopping/researching: do not get your hopes up if you shoot a lot of L-glass; where these excel is portability, very decent look/subject separation, and the macro is bloody useful to diversify your collection of shots without changing lenses. I use this on the R62 when wife and I are attending a charity event or weekend markets or something, and its perfect for these tasks where I want better-than-iphone photos but do not want to lug around the 28-70 or 50 1.2 or something. besides casual shooting, its been great for B or C-cam interview work i do, and also utilize this lens a lot for timelapses in the f2-f3.5 range. it certainly earns its keep, though for the $300 i paid for it is not hard to do. I don't trust the AF for anything important though, it can be indecisive & twitchy in lowlight. Daylight helps, but there's been just enough times where the AF in broad daylight has committed to something other that what I intended, overall i think this is the downfall of STM motors, esp when you're used to dual nano AF.
TLDR: working pros proceed with caution when expecting pro results from this lens. if you're a hobbyist and looking to yield a better look or upgrade an aging Tamron zoom, $250-300 range is a good value imo. seeing some of these in the $500-600 range new is hard to commit too imo, would highly consider EF 1.4 for about the same money, if you want a more defined look, better AF, and that famous L-glass pop to your images. The price drop on premier EF glass the last couple years is something you do not want to sleep on.
long comment here, but I'm overcaffinated and taking a break from editing hahaaa. thanks again Christopher for all the work you do on this channel 👌
Thank you for your thoughts. My husband just surprised me with the Canon R8 (upgrading from the 7D), and I'm trying to decide what will be my first RF lens (that isn't the stock lens). I'm planning on getting the EF to RF adapter since I have the 100mm macro L, so I may look into more EF L lenses over the RF...
Decisions, decisions.
@@shutterbird13 lot of variables and depends on what you shoot, but in the $700-800 range the 24-240 is a cool RF starter lens. won't be great in low light, but highly convenient, pretty sharp for daylight shoots, and the IS is honestly pretty incredible.
i think there's a lot of value in the 70-200 f4 if you want better performance. such a great and portable little lens.
for about the same money, there's an EF lens that is unlike most others .. the 28-300. it's larger and requires adapter, but covers a lot of ground and can be had for ~1/3 the cost they used to be new.
lot of great ones to choose from, but without knowing what budget is and what you're going to be shooting most, pretty difficult to make a specific reccomendation.
I like the idea of 24mm but hate the distortion. I got the RF 35mm because of that. Portraits are just nicer with the 35 IMHO.
Hi Christopher! Thank you for review. How Canon RF 24mm (and 35mm) f/1.8 Macro IS STM perform on CROP mirrorless cameras such as R10 and R7?!
Thanks for the comparision. Please can you also do similar comparison on a crop sensor camera body like EOS R7.
crop sensor will have to use a wider lens, 24mm plus the 1.6mm crop factor.
This was very helpful. Thank you! (I think I'm going for the 35 mm version) 🙂
I hope Canon will eventually make a 28mm version of this lens because 28mm is my favorite.
Your wish came true 😀 however with an aperature of 2.8.
I have a Sigma 18-35 and after watching Chris reviews when the Sigma 18-35 paired with a Canon EOS R7, I sold it and got a Tamron 35mm f1.4.
I'm planning to buy this RF 24mm once I purchase a Canon EOS R7 from an EOS 77d.
I don't like either one. Older EF L series lenses are where it's at these days.
I would answer the question with an other question. Witch other lens will you buy for combination? RF16 + RF35 or the RF24 + RF50? But in real I like to have the combination 16 + 35 + 50. So for me is the 24 useless if I really need the angle I can use the 24-105 with lower light,...
I already got the 35mm when it came out. The other lenses in my bag are the 16mm and 85mm. So I won’t be getting the 24mm.
Similar. I got 16,35,50,85 so… maybe just skip the 24🤔
24mm its give interesting photos to the Subject because of dynamic background or wide background shot.. combination with 85mm F2 IS Micro For Closer Micro Detail Shot and Nice Bokeh... to the subject we can get variety of photos... but 24mm I think Sigma the way to go it's better if is 1.4 I can give a little or enough bokeh... than a 1. 8 almost no bokeh u get when u shot in outdoor when you want to create composition.. add a beautiful dynamic background to the Subject...
Hey Chris. Are you planning on review the TTartisans 25mm f/2? Seems an absolute bargain at ~£60.
I consider 35mm looks better on protrait, however, I am using an APS C camera (R7 more specifically saying), should I consider getting a 24mm lens when taking the crop x1.6 into account? (sorry for being a newbie on photographing)
Hello. What are the lenses like at F11 in the corners. To use them for more of a landscape lens. Thanks for postings another RF 24 related video. Most likely buying this lens as I already all the RF non L lenses. And a few Ls too.
I'm considering purchasing the RF 24mm 1.8 to pair with my Rf 50mm 1.8 when I want a lightweight pairing. I already have an EF 35mm Tamron f1.4 and the RF 85mm 1.2. I was thinking about replacing the Tamron with the RF 35mm but I think it makes more sense to have a heavier, higher quality pairing with the Tamron 35m and RF 85mm and then a 'budget' pairing with the 24mm and 50mm f1.8 lenses when I'm travelling or I don't require higher IQ.
Chris thanks for video ! can you tell me which lens sharper ( better ) rf 24 1.8 or sigma 24 EF 1.4 ?
Hi Chris, Why didn´t you compare them both on APSC too?
Never - owned a 35mm
Have a 24mm, x3 28mm's, 40mm, 50mm
•35mm is either too narrow or too wide in situations
24mm vs 35mm Whose 1 is Bast For Wedding....????
I saved myself the bother of making a decision between the two, by acquiring both.
Would like your bank balance! At this stage, making do with my EF glass, including several L series I just can't afford in RF system. Canon adapter works very well. Will see what future brings as to 3rd party glass, really, very early days so far.
@@robertcudlipp3426 - I am not upgrading my EF L lenses - the RF equivalents might be marginally better in a number of respects but in the main the EF lenses do the job well - and I'm not bothered about using an adapter.
Hmmm....think I want both of them now!
I have canon R10 with RF 50mm 1.8, shooting in tattoo studio. I need more wideangle lens. Not sure which one would be better for indoor tattoo shots(both photo/video). 35 or 24 ?
Still waiting for the old school sigma 17-50 2.8 + r7 combo 😘
Hi, the rf 28mm 2.8 is sharper than these two, right? Thank you
I wonder how this 35 1.8 lens compares to 28 70 f/2 at 35mm and 15 35 f2.8 at 35 mm. I have the other two.
Which one would you recommend for Canon R50 for both photo and video use?
I think it's time for a next video with the RF 28mm f/2.8 stm thrown into the mix.... :-)
It's always funny to see how Canon crowds the 24-35mm range with a lot of options whereas the 50mm really is the stepchild with either the so so budget double gauss or the crazy heavy expensive and yet not very fast focusing f/1.2 L...... It would be just so nice to combine the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM with the RF 28mm f/2.8. I'd love to see an interchangeable mount camera for RF and FE..... Or.... hey, maybe Canon could just design an RF 50mm f/1.4 USM themselves? A compact 85mm f/1.4 USM - focusing better than the f/2.0 stm - wouldn't hurt either. All funny options, those little 24-35mm primes, but adapting the EF options isn't creating big combos anyway, so maybe it's time to give the meat and potatoes portrait focal lengths some love?
Howdy, Chris.
Would you have any interest in reviewing the AstrHori 27mm f/2.8? I recently found out about it and I think it's an interesting lens. It's incredibly cheap (about 50 USD) and offers an apsc image circle. It can focus but it has a fixed aperture, and it's very tiny. With that price and small size it could be good for travel.
35mm, the focal lenght of kings.
I bought Canon r10 (aps-c) and just wondering is it a good idea to buy this 35mm lens or go with 24mm one(24mmx1.6=38mm) what do you think? Thanks for wideo 👍
My favorite focal length in APS-C is 30-35mm (50mm on full frame). I just find it great for general use.
You should use your kit lens for a while and then check your most used focal length. That way you will know what do you prefer.
By the way, the Sigma prime lenses for RF are just around the corner. I would advice you to wait for those, as they are known to be cheaper and of great quality.
@carlosreyesf19 thanks for answering. I bought 35mm few days ago 😉👍
can you please compare rf 16mm f2.8 with 24mm 1.8?.......i know 16mm is not as bright but i want to see the angle and perspective. thanks.
Hello Mr. Christopher Frost. Can you make a review of the new Sony 28-60mm lens? I am interested to know its optical performance compared to the old Sony 28-70mm kit lens.
I double that!
Hello, what do you think about sony vs canon, the colors?
Better to buy sigma 24-35 f2.0 ef mount
I'd love a comparison between the 24 1.8 and the 24-70 2.8 @24mm
Hi! Does it not sound (Lens) when focusing with R6MII?
And the question after that
Is it good for an interview in the studio?
hi I have a question I want to buy the RF 35mm f1.8 lens or the 50mm f1.8 for portrait and macro photography but I am not sure which is best for me I use the Canon R7 with the kit lens of 18-150mm
If you want to do portrait, then the 50mm
For the Canon R7, would the 24 perform more like the 35?
24 is better for R7, I've never get used to 35mm on crop
Yes
RF 35 mm: "The inner barrel extends by around 19mm, or three-quarters of an inch, when set to its closest focusing distance of 17cm." - That is the reason that I'll never replace my EF 35 mm f/2 IS.
Stabilization? Witch is better?
this is a very niche concern, but I wish someone would taste the 24mm and the RF wide zooms for infrared performance
They taste like plastic and rubber. Would not recommend.
I just ordered an full spectrum Canon RP from Kolari vision. Their website could use some updating. They don't even have any descriptions on some of their filters.
But I did find it interesting that most, but not all, RF lenses have an internal IR LED and so aren't usable for long exposures.
I was thinking about at least testing my RF lenses for that and telling Kolari vision they need to update their list of which RF lenses are suitable and which aren't
Please tell me, can I install a hood for a Canon 24 rf 35 mm 1.8 lens on a Canon rf 35 mm 1.8?
Why didn't show their distortion???
Ill stick with my 16, 35 and 85 samyang 1.4
What if actually...
Canon want to position itself as a exclusive camera (when they still don't want to allow 3rd party lenses)
I brought both，but I sold 35mm……
Hope you can test these on the r7 too
But if you use a cropped sensor like r7...?
Will the 24mm still distort faces the same if it used on a crop Sensor Mirrorless like the R7?
Yes. The only difference is that the soft edges would be cropped and so not an issue, like on the full frames. Your software should correct the distortion with the correct camera profile. I have the 35mm on a cropped sensor and the image is flat and lifeless. Very boring lens. I’ll sell it and get the 24mm.
here for the example what is shown in this video, it is mostly not the lens that distorts the face (barrel distortion). it is the distance (perspective distortion). if you shoot from same distance with both lenses and crop the 24mm image to look like 35mm, you will see almost no difference.
Edit: here is a very good video showing what I mean. ua-cam.com/video/_TTXY1Se0eg/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Fstoppers
Perfect comparison. It is something like this that makes sense.
Hey guys, any suggestions on how using F mount glass on Canon RF cameras? How (badly) will using the F to EF and then the EF to RF adapters?
Just get a nikon F to canon Rf. $15 on Amazon.
@@Robert_Gonzales My problem is autofocus
@@tankivulture148 thats not gonna work at all
This question is easy to be answered: I have both!
I haven't seen the video yet, but why one should been hesitant between two tottaly different focal length lenses which are only alike in build? Does it mean we should expect such an odd comparison for every other focal lengths by any brands? There will a ton! These 2 lenses differ basically due to their different nation of their focal length.
the 24mm is looking better optimized for APS-C as well and the 35mm is more targeted at full frame i guess, considering the performance on center where most of the APS-C frame is.
Only APS-C lenses are optimized for APS-C. After all there is a huge part of the optics being wasted on APS-C and you only are capturing less of half the detail the lens is producing.
@@2point7182818284590 and so?
The IQ in the center being much better than the 35mm makes the 24mm the better „APS-C“ lens
Hello chris,for the 2 lenses you reviewed which one is better for landscape for your taste..asking recommendation
Waiting 16mm vs 28 mm
Would've been nice if they offered some kind of weather and dust resistance. As it stands they're too expensive for what they are (cheapo plastic and very software corrected optics) and there is no step up from them except £1,5k+ L lenses... Which are occasionally also very software corrected despite their cost (ex: the 14-35mm).
In your portrait comparison you come dangerously close to stating that a 24mm lens by its nature distorts portraits more. This is not the case, as the exaggeration in your features is due to the fact that you framed yourself the same, and therefore we’re much closer to the camera in the 24mm shot. It’s this distance to subject that changes the perspective, not the focal length. Take environmental portraits with more setting and the person smaller in frame and you will get similar distortion (with different framing of course.)
Why should the photographer compromise on composition? If he/she wants to compose the frame such that the face fills a specific percentage, they will need to live with the facial distortion of the 24mm or else use the 35mm. People generally frame based on placement and size of the subject, not by walking backwards until facial distortion is minimized. If the photographer must shrink the subject to eliminate distortion, then you are applying a severe limitation to the creative process. Your suggestion makes no sense because you are asking the photographer to take a different picture.
@@yohan2437well said 👌🏻
24-105 stm on r7?
This is bad idea IMO. You will loose wide angle. Also 24-105STM is not very sharp and it will show badly on 32Mpx crop sensor. R7 deserve better 😉 (but unfortunately Canon offer only cheap kitlenses). Best bet is 18-150 so far.
Like 900🎉
Phones have long distorted faces and we’ve all been accustomed to that look. 24mm is fine for portraits because of this, and much more versatile than 35mm
There's no way I'll ever buy an RF lens. Canon blocking third party vendors is simply unacceptable, and I will not reward them.
Then you are just not their target audience. They don’t care about the dying low end market that’s being eaten into by phones.
Canon: Here's an EF to RF adapter. You don't need to spend a single dollar replacing your lenses. Our full catalogue of EF lenses and those made by everyone else will work seamlessly on our new mirrorless cameras. All those highly praised and beloved lenses made by us, Sigma, Tamron, etc won't be left behind. We even found ways to improve them if you want.
You: You greedy bastards!
@N578MD The mount is just the way connect the lens to the camera body. The lens is just a way to get light to the sensor. A sharp EF lens with an EF mount or a sharp RF mount lens, it makes no difference.
If an EF was sharp and quick to focus before, it's sharp and quick to focus still.
Most of the benefit of the R system is in the body of the camera.
These complaints are almost as bad as people complaining about plastic mounts on lenses so light that adding a metal mount doesn't add any benefit and only adds to the cost.
@n578md2 But still. Equally good EF and RF lenses are both equally good on RF mount. Mount adapter does not deteriorate picture quality. The AF and IS, however, might be the other story.
35 looks like unsharp lens, huge difference compare to 24
Don't buy either!
Why not?
@@Arthur_My_Dear because they are garbage related to Sigma and Tamron Quality you get for the same price on another system ;)
But VC Tamron 1.8 lenses only would be adapted in RF mounts, btw, Tamron doesnt have a 24mm 1.8 stabilized, only a 35mm, 45mm & 85mm
@@pabloalvaradolopez3941 Just buy a Sigma 24mm F2 DG DN or Sigma 35mm F2 DG DN
@@muttishelfer9122 The only 24mm 1.8 stabilized lens in the world is this one, and it has a lot of quality, of course Sigma has better quality and better F-Stop, but this is about needs like IS, not everything is about sharpness or low light performance.
Don't buy either. The EF versions are better. Stm motor is crap.
That's a lie
The EF 35 f2 is not better than the RF 35 1.8. Which EF version are you talking about?
I own the RF 35 1.8, 50 1.8, and 85 f2, and they are all really nice lenses, especially the 35.
@@brianode11 - They're all good, solid lenses and I am pleased with my copies. I also have the 24 and 16, both of which I am more than satisfied with.
Optically: no. For IS: no. For AF-speed: Yes Stm is the most hurting for the 85mm f/2.0 IS stm though.
Stm is actually pretty good and preferable to usm in some cases.