Canon RF 24-105mm f/2.8 'L' IS USM Z lens review

[@charlesteton]

You are definitely the only reviewer to go seriously go to. Honest to the bone. Bought at least four lenses after watch your reviews and never been disappointed. Well done and best wishes. Regards, Charles

[@Yupthereitism]

This guy is a canon shill

[@charlesteton]

@@Yupthereitism 🤣🤣🤣

[@JoaquimGonsalves]

I agree. I still have the old Sigma 17-50 2.8 since I first saw his review back in 2017.

[@MB-dq2gz]

Solid Snake's response to 24mm distortion was hilarious 😂

[@GungKrisna12]

"NANI!?"

[@classic.cameras]

Seeing the distortion at 24mm and then correcting optically at around 35mm. I wonder if originally this was designed as a 35-105mm (which Canon made in the past) but then they figured a way to make it 24mm corrected with software. Optically it seems very good 35mm and on but wow that 24mm reminds me of their 16mm f2.8 lens.

[@brianbeattyphotography]

yeah, that distortion is pretty ugly!

[@TigaWould]

Yup that’s exactly the case. But… meh I don’t care. Covers my needs. Plus at this stage everything in mirrorless is being corrected with software, which is why none of these lenses in any mirrorless systems were possible with DSLR’s (or the lenses would be 3 times the size). It’s the same case on every mount.

[@JMurph2015]

@@TigaWould That's not actually true though. The shorter flange length and larger throat diameter of RF and Z mount allow *more* optical designs in general. It *is* possible to take a DSLR lens, rework the optics for the shorter flange length, and end up with a lighter, smaller lens. A lot of the wide angle DSLR lenses were doing retrofocal designs because things get slightly weird optically if your focal length is shorter than the flange distance. With mirrorless, everything down to ~20mm should be doable without retrofocal optics (down from ~40mm in DSLRS). Anyway, for example the RF 50mm f/1.2L, is a great example of what "no compromises" mirrorless can be. It has almost no substantial issues, even uncorrected (really just some vignetting). Here though, Canon is taking the approach that they do with their cheaper lenses (using a bunch of in-camera corrections to avoid optical complexity) but on a $3500 lens.

[@joaovtaveira]

Despite I'll probably never afford this lens, I had the chance to test it in nature/the countryside, for a few hours, borrowed by Canon Portugal, during an event organized by a photography shop and sponsored by Canon Portugal. This is an an absolute beast of a lens, just spectacular and I did not feel that it is that heavy, I just loved it with my Canon EOS R7, AMAZING.

[@Laundry_Hamper]

Here we go baby!! An absolutely insane object for them to have brought into existence

[@jeremytheoneofdestiny8691]

It’s not that insane, it’s actually extremely practical and sure to sell very well

[@andreigheorghe2709]

Omg, yes, I have been waiting for this lens ever since it was announced! THANK YOU SO MUCH!

[@OddVenturesOne]

a dream lens came into reality, it is great that Canon listens to its faithful customer these days.

[@rogerdc7136]

I love the sound effect referring to the distortion hahaha we love you Christopher, thanks for your videos! fantastic review

[@undifinder6643]

I only had been owning this lens for trading in my 70-200 f2.8III and 16-35mm f4 IS and paid 1700 for this, and you know what, its worth it and will be the only lens I ever used from now on along with 100-500mm, scaling down from trio+ to duo, I don't mind the weight of it being internally zoom. I think whats most reviewers don't mention is the lens use more t-stop rather than f-stop, having completely round aperture blades like cinema lens so the effects might look more f2 than f2.8 while light transmission is the same. At 105mm, macro capability is great and sharper than I expected at 10 inch/.24 meter, similar to the 100mm f2.8. CA effect is rather strong at 105mm f2.8 when at max MFD. This is overall probably one of the greatest close-medium range lens at 2.8 I ever owned and I'm still trying to test more of what it can do. I have tried this on rented R6MKII and my R7.

[@1tothe2the3]

And I thought the 28-70 F2 was a chonk. This is an absolute unit.

[@trym2121]

Imagine 24-105 f2. That's the absolute unit

[@80-80.]

But the 28-70 f2 is even heavier and much fatter.

[@fouriousbanana6966]

@@80-80.😏

[@TigaWould]

I own a 24-105 f/2.8. It’s a lot more balanced than the 28-70 f/2 (which is front heavy), plus you can use the tripod collar as an additional way to balance the lens. It’s solid and versatile.

[@morscodez]

Phil Thach TM

[@jeremytheoneofdestiny8691]

“The force is strong with this one” 💯

[@VynZography]

For £3500 I expect sharp corners. Edit - For £3500 I expect corners 10:20

[@Cahejo]

Thank you for the great chuckle!

[@GioJonnhyK]

me too 😂😂😂😂

[@no2lagwev251]

The best photo camera reviewer seen so far. Congrats!

[@Augnos]

The reliance on digital corrections makes this awesome lens a no-go for me. I’m absolutely shocked with how sharp it looks, but strong distortion corrections look like hell when shooting at very high ISO.

[@classic.cameras]

Seems like Canon more then any other manufactures are doing this. Like the RF35L is also terrible with out lens corrections. Like if Canon wants to do this, ok fine but how about a break on price while we are at it as these lenses are cheating compared to the EF versions that were optically very very good without corrections.

[@justinburley8659]

If you don’t get over your hate of digital corrections, you may never buy a modern day mirrorless lens again. I hope things work out for you though. There may just be some gems out there for you in future

[@Yupthereitism]

@@justinburley8659Nikons rely much less on digital correction. Go Nikon

[@justinburley8659]

@@Yupthereitism There is still a heavy reliance though

[@Yupthereitism]

@@justinburley8659 that’s relative. No, I would say they utilize correction but don’t rely on it

[@kellenholt6655]

Credit where credit is due, this is a trail blazer of a lens and I commend Canon for bringing it to market and breaking through the barriers they did. With that said, there were bound to be some compromises made when developing a lens like this and we certainly see them on display here. Considering this seems to be a lens that leans towards video use, the sensor coverage issue at 24mm may be a big issue for non-Canon RF cameras like most new RED units who can't do corrections in-body for lenses. There are probably people out there that this lens solves a lot of problems for, but even if I had the money for it, the size/weight and optical compromises would be deal breakers for me, especially if I'm paying $3k+ for a lens. With that said, hopefully this lens is the first step towards more lenses like this coming to market, and hopefully over time the technology will get better and lenses like this will get smaller/lighter.

[@ER-gn8io]

Wenn diese Objektive kleiner und leichter werden sollen, werden die notwendigen Korrekturen bezüglich Vignette und Verzeichnung noch größer werden als jetzt schon!

[@tomed09]

I'll stick with my Rf F4!

[@EST84x]

Had no idea Canon had that restriction on the aperture ring..how odd. Anyway, what a unit!

[@goosepicklefire]

I’ve been waiting for this CF review. LETS GOOOO

[@I922sParkCir]

I really miss having a 24mm, but I think I’d prefer my Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8 for weddings and events. During weddings I will often have my 24mm f1.8 on one body, and the 35-150mm on the main body.

[@Digi20]

if only this would be available for canon ;)

[@Metorphis616]

I have the Sigma 14-24mm Art for wider shots on A7RV... Still way better than a 70-200mm... My Tamron is sharper than gm Version 1 i had before😅

[@ritrattoaziendale]

Yeah, that Tamron will have me switch to Sony at the end of this wedding season, after 25 years with Canon. Can't wait anymore for the release of third party RF lenses.

[@edowijaya8603]

Why not use prime lens like laowa for wedding?

[@I922sParkCir]

@@edowijaya8603 which Laowa specifically? I typically use prime lenses, except during wedding ceremonies where I need ultimate versatility.

[@breadandcircuses5644]

Looks like a great lense to partner with the Canon 100-500 for a two lense/two camera wildlife/safari setup.

[@darklordmaestro6798]

Finally the lens ive been waiting to see review from Chris

[@simoneb.5666]

Grazie, è sempre un piacere vedere le tue recensioni, grazie molte

[@classic.cameras]

With the price, weight and ISO performance of modern cameras. For me this would be a pass and if I needed a 24-105 I would just use the f4 version. However. I congratulate Canon for making such a thing.

[@indyjones720]

Tbh, I love my F4 version of this lens. It’s been perfect in every way, minus issues with focusing at times. Which was a common issue the F4 had. The 2.8 looks like they fixed that, making the image sharper, and better contrast. Maybe one day I’ll be able to afford this beauty 🥹 it would go perfect with my R6 Mark II!

[@andrewwatanabe7095]

Was waiting for this review!

[@janplexy]

10:22 - WOW for such an expensive lens!! 😯

[@kevinmorgan7085]

Even though I've mostly given up on photography, this is the one lens I want on Sony to replace my 24-105 F4.

[@mvp_kryptonite]

What a cool lens! Looks like digital correction will be a feature here to stay. I’m not phased by it though.

[@rudyreimer302]

That is some incredible glass! Great review as always, thank you! I don't see this one replacing my 28-70mm f2 though...

[@amermeleitor]

Seems like the lens it's all internal and doesn't extend. Internal zoom and internal focus. That's impressive

[@RichardFraser-y9t]

The added bit from 70 to 105 over the regular f/2.8 will be quite useful, best be at that price.

[@rolandsv8]

Well - its not a bad value vs 24-70. 50 percent increase in zoom reach for 31% increase in price. Would be a no brainer in not the huge size

[@MB-dq2gz]

I guess for people that really want that wide angle to normal tele range this is a winner. I would prefer something on a bit of the longer end if the lens is so large and heavy. Nothing beats options though so good on Canon.

[@riveraluciano]

I was drawing very calmly and started to hear the music from The Sims 1, had to drop everything in an instant

[@killthomas8373]

The 24-105mm f4 was one of my favourite ever lenses, paired with the 5D mark ii it was an absolute beast. I imagine Canon is trying to build of that legacy and make this the mirrorless equivalent.

[@ciprianpavia]

Ohh finally 🙏thank you chris

[@jonasgillmann]

Thanks! I've been waiting for this review! I hope you'll also get your hands on the Canon R5 II because there isn't a single product I buy before I've seen a review from you about it. Hopefully, the lens wobbling in the image corners with the RF15-35 f/2.8 L IS USM will be less pronounced with the R5 II. There may even be a successor to the RF15-35 f/2.8 L IS USM sometime in 2024 or early 2025 (RF15-35 Z). Can't wait!

[@BarisYener]

This lens combined with the very nice and compact Canon RF 70-200 2.8 and you have your dual wombo combo. Congrats Canon Shooters! (Nikon Z User here)

[@trulsdirio]

Why carry and pay that much more, to have 35mm of overlap be the only thing you gain?

[@Trent1453]

The better combo would obviously be the 100-300mm f/2.8, but that's in an entirely different price category. Mirrorless flange distances are giving some amazing abilities to obtain brighter apertures where they used to require monster sized lenses. I can't wait to see if somebody tries to create a new 200-500mm f/2.8 and how small it could be. Maybe shifting up to 300-500mm or 300-600mm since we've already got f/2.8 coverage from 24mm all the way to 300mm on 2 zooms.

[@JamesAAshton]

@@Trent1453 Flange distances help wide angle lenses but not so much past 50mm. 500mm/2.8 is 180mm, a monster front element diameter.

[@ER-gn8io]

Nachdem letzte Woche das RF 70-200 L IS USM Z ausgeliefert wurde, wird dieses Objektiv weniger nachgefragt werden da bin ich mir sicher! Die Probleme die bei 24-105 vorhanden sind werden hier wohl nicht zu erwarten sein! In diesem Bereich 70-200 hat Canon immer schon brilliert!

[@MrRezQ]

You’ve been itching to get this lens and we’ve been itching harsher for your review of it 🤝

[@raahensalophotography]

That's quite impressive lens! Interesting to see will there be something similar for the Sony E-mount in the future

[@ecmjr]

I would love to get this new power zoom lens. This will complement my Canon EF-S 18-135mm with the Canon Power Zoom module (another great lens).

[@harraldschmitt9113]

thats a very very impressive lense.

[@MK20202]

Thanks for the effort on reviewing the lens… was waiting for it😅 As a photographer will go with 28-70 or 24-105 f4… This is good for video work.. automatically in 4k there is crop .. so the heavy vignetting will not show up…

[@kevindiaz3459]

Hey Chris, or anyone who might know, do you have a review of the RF 35mm F1.4L VCM? I am interested in that lens, but I would love to see you review it before I decide on it.

[@DesoloZantas]

You finally got it!

[@octaviansfetcu4458]

Thank you for one more incredible lens review. What do you think about this lens for printing landscape photography?

[@RFGfotografie]

Awesome video!

[@ChristianKatja]

Excellent review.

[@Twobarpsi]

A great Canon lens!

[@photoangelov]

This looks like an old EF lens, with those wide grooves on the focus and zoom rings.

[@pingbookent]

5:40 Use this ring to change Kelvin is very convenience.

[@unusual10production58]

I can't afford any cheap camera or lens let alone this, but I love your videos, I watch them sometimes and fantasize as if this lens in my hand. I wish I can buy this with cannon r5 mark 2

[@Sashalexandros]

Would like to see COMA at other lengths

[@hellopsp180]

i like the tamron 35-150 f2 to 2.8 more, its just a more useful focal range for me.

[@ER-gn8io]

Das reden sie sich nur ein weil dieses Objektiv für sie unerreichbar scheint! Das breite Ende ist deutlich wichtiger als das schmale Ende!

[@hellopsp180]

@@ER-gn8io for my work I much prefer a 35mm over a 24 mm. When i do need a wide I much prefer the 20 mm focal length instead. Rarely do i reach for a 24mm. If ever.

[@SenpaiSilver]

That electronic quirk at 03:30 seems like a huge oversight that should have never happened from Canon...

[@JoaquimGonsalves]

3:05 Yep, Sigma is the only one I currently know of who do those beautifully tactile and luxurious feeling 90° detents. I've been spoiled by that since they launched the 50-100.😂

[@rainyambience923]

Actually disappointing performance for such a premium lens. I expected more from an L line, nice review as always Christopher

[@v_stands_for_value124]

This thing is the real do it all lens

[@swistedfilms]

Honestly, this is a far better lens for event photography than the 24-70 f/2.8. I was expecting FAR better than the distortion and CA that we saw, especially at $3K. But maybe I'm spoiled by the Canon RF 50MM f/1.2. I can't get this lens straight away but maybe by the time I do they'll have a Mark II out that will deal with some of the issues. But if I had $3K to spare right now this would already be in my bag. Incredibly useful! I don't know how many times I wished I had just a little bit more reach than 70MM while indoors!

[@anasrida3454]

It could be very useful for wedding photographers, but given the somewhat strong CA that might be an issue when taking photos of the bride for example.

[@ER-gn8io]

Das Objektiv ist gerade wenige Monate erhältlich und schon wird ein Mark II gewünscht! Das wird Jahre dauern!

[@anasrida3454]

After the image is corrected, does it still give the angle of view of a 24mm lens? And a 105mm at that. Always wondered with new lenses nowadays.

[@Robin_Polarstern]

Nice thank you 😊

[@NateSceneTV]

35 1.4 VCM up next? 👀

[@quincylee2276]

Seems like an excellent lens for video, would have given it serious thought if I was a Canon shooter.

[@HeadlessChickenTO]

I saw one of these open box at $400(CAN) under the regular price. It was literally brand new, only mounted once by someone that found it too heavy after buying it. I really wanted to nab it, but I simply didn't have the money even at that discounted price. EDIT: OMG, I didn't realize it was even larger than the old EF 70-200 F2.8L...the exact lens I was hoping this one was to replace because I damaged mine.

[@vinzaputra]

What a dream focal length, but that price tag tho

[@musicman8942]

I wonder if the vignetting at 24mm was due to the what seems like a too small lens shade?

[@Augnos]

It's a petal-shaped hood, so i doubt it. This hard vignette is a recurring effect in multiple mirrorless lenses at the wide end.

[@ER-gn8io]

Ich glaube das der Durchmesser der Frontlinse bzw. des Filters größer sein müsste um die Vignettierung zu verringern! Das 28-70 f2 hat bereits bei 28 mm einen Filterdurchmesser von 95 mm, deshalb ist es auch so schwer geworden! Wenn sie das hier auch gemacht hätten wäre das Gewicht zu hoch geworden! Sie haben das kleinere Übel gewählt! Aber ist nur meine Einschätzung!

[@angusmackay7281]

Thanks, Christopher, informative and usful as ever. One ring to rule them all is very tempting for feild hybrid work. As an aside, I always think your little seaside village looks so idyllic. Are you in Cornwall?

[@christopherfrost]

They are pictures of Llangrannog, Wales :-)

[@angusmackay7281]

@@christopherfrost, Ah, of course. I should have guessed that by your accent!

[@RC534]

I have the RF 24-105 F/4 as my main lens. Ever since this F/2.8 beast of a lens has been released I have been craving it... Though the money is most definitely an objection in this case 😂.

[@ER-gn8io]

Ein ehrlicher Kommentar!

[@muzlee7479]

Honestly, idk what canon is doing. This sounds like a really good lens but then what is that performance? The size and price are while not good, understandable. But that CA is insane.The amount of time you have to spend correcting it would probably pay for another body with a 70-200 2.8.

[@chrisbryant8317]

Sut mae Chris. My wife and I have booked a holiday in August that is near you. As I am a dedicated mountain man and usually holibob in, and photograph, the Lake District, I am at a loss. What photo sites would you recommend in and around the Tresaith area? Love your reviews.

[@christopherfrost]

Send me an email and I'll get back to you

[@chrisbryant8317]

@@christopherfrost Hi Chris, have sent email. Cheers.

[@brianbeattyphotography]

Look at that difference in size (and weight too) compared to the f/4 at 2:17. I can't see any reason why a landscape shooter would ever choose this over the f/4 version. Lots of applications for this lens, but landscape sure isn't one

[@CarlMartRod]

Of course, but any person that already own it (2.8) for other purposes and then want to use it for landscape, nothing stops them doing it.

[@brianbeattyphotography]

@@CarlMartRod I mean yeah sure, but you could say that about any lens

[@CarlMartRod]

@@brianbeattyphotography right

[@appalingbehaviour]

Canon taking their name all too literally, 1.3kg!!!

[@mofi3641]

I miss the more detailed bokeh test. The highlights are not particularly nice on this lens. In general, Frost is once again a bit more manufacturer-friendly than with others. I find the comparison with the 50 1.0 interesting. Optically, this monster was anything but good and the 24-105 also has a lot of questionable compromises. Overall, though, very solid. Thanks for that

[@markroscoephotography]

It’s a shame you can’t get the tamron 35-150 for canon… better value

[@DarkPa1adin]

Didn't know you know Metal Gear Solid's warning sound effect

[@trulsdirio]

Way to big to be useful to me. If I need the reach f4 is just fine with modern sensors and if I want the aperture I could live with havjng only 70mm of reach. I dont really see this fitting in most use cases.

[@lesnayalesichka]

it must be white colored because of price and weight

[@Shuttermemory]

Naaah... I'm still waiting for the 8-300mm f1. 8

[@messmeister92]

That’s not a lens, that’s artillery

[@sgredsch]

nice lens, i wish nikon would make something like that but they are busy making 50mm lenses instead. that uncorrected 24mm hurts tho. i mean, yea, its a complex lens that ticks alot of boxes, but thats still pretty fugly.

[@ER-gn8io]

Die eierlegende Wollmilchsau gibt es nicht! Ein Objektiv beinhaltet immer einen Kompromiss der hier allerdings etwas kleiner sein sollte!

[@philbarrance]

mr frost while i love your reviews the ocd pedant in me baulks everytime you say garsket its gasket prounounced gas kit of course it doesnt matter at all but i spent 40 years as a mechanic and would have been hung from an engine crane if i had ever said it needs a new head garsket" lol! still please cary on giving reviews they do help ......phil

[@RFGfotografie]

I want this lens so badly if I finally get a R6MarkII.

[@ER-gn8io]

Mit dieser Kamera können sie den Blendenring für Fotos nicht nutzen!

[@selkiemaine]

Neat stuff - but what a niche product! My response to this is my EF 24-105 f/4 L on a Metabones speedbooster on an R7. That gives me f/2.8. :D To be fair, though, I'm not a videographer, and can't really take advantage of the special features anyway.

[@okaro6595]

That is f/2.8 on APS-C which is f/4.5 equivalent. No adapter will make the lens exceed what it was designed for.

[@selkiemaine]

@@okaro6595 blur, yes I agree. But in terms of shutter speed, f/2.8 is what I get out of it.

[@daveinportland]

I can't count the number of videos of yours that I've seen and today was the first time I noticed the Batman logo. Thoughts on this vs the Tamron 35-150 (or is that like comparing apples to oranges)?

[@GungKrisna12]

Imagine if Canon decided to take down this video for the distortion test

[@EverythingCameFromNothing]

Greetings!!

[@fricki1997]

Given the already very impressive high ISO performance of recent cameras, and adding AI denoise on top of that....I'm really not sure if it's worth the price in size, weight, and, well, cost.

[@donho6523]

For 3000 plus dollars, I expect near perfect performance. This is about as close as it gets. Thanks for another comprehensive and thoughtful review!

[@scherge]

At this price point, I expect better CA behavior. Why would you want to stop down to f8 when shooting at 105 mm? That's not what you buy a 2.8 lens for. Those CAs look real nasty, imo. And since you get longitudinal ones as well as lateral ones, this will be challenging to correct. People who don't see stuff like that won't buy such a lens, and everyone else probably won't be happy about such a bad optical performance. I'll stick to my trusty 24-70 f2.8. Much better price to performance ratio, imo.

[@joerg_koeln]

Thanks for the interesting review. Hello Canon: for more than 3.000 EUR we would expect a focus scale and a scale for depth of field.

[@ER-gn8io]

Das wird im Display angezeigt!

[@grdprojekt]

Oof, another RF L lens that doesn't do wide angle correctly. You have to ask, what are those 23 optics elements are doing in there?

[@ER-gn8io]

Bis jetzt hat sich noch keiner an ein 24-105 mit konstanter Blende von 2.8 gewagt! Das Ergebnis ist der Beweis warum das so ist!

[@momchilyordanov8190]

I compared Christophers test of Nikon Z 24-120 and this one, out of curiosity. The Nikon lens is sharper at all focal lengths. I was kind of surprised by that, but anyway. Just an interesting fact.

[@DethronerX]

Looks cool! I think for focus breathing, when you have an object at close focus point, then your attention automatically goes to it when racking, making the breathing less noticeable, especially if the transition is smooth and the time taken to pull focus is done right for that shot. We mostly notice the breathing either when its only the background, or if our close range subject has enough breathing space around it and it's not near the edges.

[@EXkurogane]

Canon at it again with their "corner cutting* when it comes to optics

[@sa.t.2507]

I’m happy with them cutting corners if I can have an extremely versatile lens like this one. And even if they use digital correction It doesn’t bother me since no one will ever know or notice it in my productions. So at the end of the day, who cares?

[@ER-gn8io]

Der kann sich das Objektiv so oder so nicht leisten! Will nur seinen Senf dazu geben weil er sonst nichts zu tun hat!😊

[@fallogingl]

Hmm idk why but RF L glasses dont have the same aura as the EF L glasses back then

[@ER-gn8io]

Ihren Kommentar habe ich schon öfters gelesen aber sie haben nie konkret beschrieben was sie damit genau meinen! Ich hatte viele EF Objektive und ich habe viele RF Objektive und konnte keine unterschiedliche Aura fühlen! Natürlich habe ich mir bei RF Linsen nur noch die L Serie gegönnt!

[@mekore]

somewhat undercooked lens

[@l3alamiya]

10:22 technically, this is not a fullframe camera lens

[@NGC1433]

Three grand... Canon is weird lately. They are making landfill like RF 50 and 16mm, and this, basically wealth tax with "IS" printed on it. I can't care about this shitte anymore. Photography as a hobby is reached complete enshittification in realm of new gear.

[@joaovtaveira]

This lens is not disastrous in distortion and vignetting, it's designed to be electronically corrected in things that that correction doesn´t cause major quality issues. This is a tendency of the industry, not exclusive from this lens or even Canon.

[@Augnos]

For low light, high iso photographers, it’s a real shame. At this time, digital corrections don’t solve the moire noise patterning. And the fact that these lenses are just getting optically worse and reliant on digital corrections even further exaggerate these patterns. They look terrible, and I have to shoot with distortion correction off for each of my lenses when I go as high as 40k iso. Until Lightroom can figure out how to implement distortion correction without creating a bunch of ugly noisy circles with RAW files, I’ll have to pass on every one of these lenses.

[@justinburley8659]

@@Augnos But does anybody but the photographer notice those issues? Most of our audience isn’t going to pixel peep. It is only a problem for those who make giant prints, and those people will find the gear that suits their needs

[@joaovtaveira]

@@justinburley8659 exactly!

[@Augnos]

@@justinburley8659 If you have any lenses with strong distortion corrections, try for yourself. It's pretty obvious when you can see the noise patterns in the thumbnails.

[@gundarsmiks4889]

3k ... For a lens. Cmon. Good for doc. video, yes! But 3k! Its not worth it in any way. You can buy a camera and good lens for that money. And all the other accesories like tripods lights and so on. But if you are willing to invest... Why not i suppose. All in one package. Put this on and forget changing lenses. Except maybe for a 70-300 or something...

[@evgeniyreutov9713]

So it's a 24mm before correction and ≈26mm after or it’s 22mm on a wide become 24mm after this program correction?

[@okaro6595]

The focal lenghts are always on the corrected image.

[@pingbookent]

24mm after digitally corrected same as RF 10-20mm. Raw at 10 is not 10mm. It's like 9mm.

[@ER-gn8io]

​@@pingbookent Sehr gutes Beispiel! Schon beim RF 14-35 f4 war das so!

[@auyeongwy]

Sorry. I stopped the video when 1.3kg was mentioned 😢