| sent on November 17, 2022
Pros: Sharp - compact - lightweight - closeup capacity - bright - bokeh
Cons: No hood - chromatic aberrations - optical correction "mandatory"
Opinion: It's worth what it costs (and it's not cheap). It is part of that series of Canon lenses (and not only) designed not to be optically perfect and usable "as is" but taking into account all the corrections that the camera firmware and / or post production software will operate when opening the file. The RAW file excluding the above fixes shows an image strongly plagued by barrel distortion, strong light drop at the edges and insufficient sharpness in the peripheral areas of the format. Said so it seems a ciofeca, but in reality modern optics are not designed as if they had to be corrected for the film (ie without any possible intervention between shooting and viewing the image) but precisely taking into account at the start, in the design phase, the subsequent fw and sw interventions on the file. Other RF L series lenses that I own are already very correct "of them" but cost a bang, weigh and bulk a lot. Downstream of the fw / sw optimization process this 24/1.8 shows off a surprising image quality in terms of sharpness, uniformity of yield, absence of clb and - why not - distortion. I believe that the focal length is less than 24mm, which return as such after processing the file, when the barrel returns to being a nice rectangle, the darkness at the edges lights up with new light and the peripheral resolution recovers readability more than enough to compare it with the image center. These aspects, this idea of a design that from the beginning takes into account and takes for obvious the post-shot processing, can make you turn up your nose, and I understand it. Even the canon Rf 16mm/2.8, without post-shot processing almost looks like a fisheye. And for those who do not know, the fabulous output file of a Leica Q2, is also the result of a process that starts from the image produced by the summilux 28/1.7 which - in itself - suffers from the same flaws mentioned above. It may not be nice to know, but it is; But, I add, it works perfectly: very sharp prints of 50x75cm have shown me several times. Then it is obvious that Q2 is a closed system optimized for that lens on that sensor, which will never be separated (except by hammering, if you want to). Instead with a system with interchangeable lenses like Canon RF, it goes without saying that the fw and sw corrections for a shot of my 15-35 / 2.8 set to 24mm will be minimal, while the interventions necessary to straighten, illuminate and optimize the same shot obtained with the RF 24 / 1.8 are much more substantial: therefore, perhaps, a fanatic of the magnification of the detail at the edges seen at 400% will find more or less striking differences. But if this 24, which we remember is very bright, stabilized and also reaches the RR 1: 2, was excellent without the need for fw and sw, well it would cost more than € 2000 and would be much longer and heavier. Everyone always says it, but I join the chorus that criticizes Canon for the absence of a hood supplied: when will they understand that sensible people go to buy them from Chinese manufacturers on Amazon? |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
