Correction: Canon is bringing us an RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM Macro

[Optics Patent]

OK …

The confused defender of soccer moms.

 

[Dragon]

f=7.1is a hard one to swallow.

A cloudy day, and you have to pack and go home.....

Methinks you are overplaying it a bit. Most EF-s glass is f/5.6 at the long end and F/7.1 on FF is effectively more than a half stop faster. Most folks with crop frame don't pack up and go home because is gets cloudy. Besides, remember lots of stops of IS with lens plus IBIS.

 

[Traveler]

Seven point one ! ?

f=7.1is a hard one to swallow.

A cloudy day, and you have to pack and go home.....

Why on earth would Canon make an f7.1 lens..?

If Canon made an equal performing lens for an APSC body then it would be 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5 – very good parameters for a kit lens, don’t you think?

Not every lens is for everyone but if the optical quality is good and the pricing is right then this is gonna be a great lens to start with on an RP-ish body.
And I may consider buying it too as a travel lens due to its weight of less then 400g.

This lens may show that Canon is not going to make an APSC R body. Which would be great but I’m worried that the majority of people believe that an f/2.8 lens for APSC is better than f/4 lens for FF (which is not). Therefore they’d prefer other brands APSC’s

 

[ahsanford]

Ouch. Feels like the cripple hammer worked overtime on this one to differentiate with the L lens. You should have just made it about build quality and weather sealing Canon. That would have been enough.

No, it will be roughly half the price and much smaller and lighter.

That's not a cripple hammer product -- that's an affordable lens.

- A

 

[Dragon]

That aperture range sounds more like a lens aimed at a 'rebel' (xxxD) series camera rather than what we usually associate with full frame.
Does make you wonder what on earth Canon has got up their sleeve...

FF mirrorless rebels. Why not?

 

[ahsanford]

That aperture range sounds more like a lens aimed at a 'rebel' (xxxD) series camera rather than what we usually associate with full frame.
Does make you wonder what on earth Canon has got up their sleeve...

There's no wondering. It will be tinier, lighter and less expensive than the L. That is of value to some folks.

For perspective, from CanonNews (nice graphic but no story linked to it):



- A

 

[Optics Patent]

It’s barely more than HALF the weight of the f4 L lens that details for $1100.

This promises to be a handy little gem for people who don’t occasionally mind a little ISO in their imaging.

 

[Optics Patent]

That aperture range sounds more like a lens aimed at a 'rebel' (xxxD) series camera rather than what we usually associate with full frame.
Does make you wonder what on earth Canon has got up their sleeve...

Remember when big HD TV screens were only for the big spenders?

 

[David - Sydney]

(*Try using an EF 24-something L on a crop body for general travel/walkabout/all-purpose shooting. You will be cursing that the wide end is too long and always reaching for your EF-S ultrawide zoom.)

Which is how I started out as an ignorant newbie... 7D with 24-105L (~38mm on the short end which is still great for street/portrait) and then added the EF-S 10-22mm second hand for land/seascape. Not a bad pair of "kit" lens for 10x zoom.

 

[ahsanford]

FF mirrorless rebels. Why not?

Glass, that's why. Too pricey.

Crop image circles lenses are much much less expensive.

I still contend that RF-S lenses (i.e. crop image circle lenses) + crop RF bodies --> RF becoming 'one mount to rule them all' is a better way to go than asking the Rebel market to pony up for pricey (even budget class) FF glass.

- A

 

[David - Sydney]

Is this CR3?

 

[ahsanford]

Which is how I started out as an ignorant newbie... 7D with 24-105L (~38mm on the short end which is still great for street/portrait) and then added the EF-S 10-22mm second hand for land/seascape. Not a bad pair of "kit" lens for 10x zoom.

Me, too! But on a general walkabout, vaca, etc. I was constantly changing out my 10-22 and 24-70. And I do mean constantly.

Once I moved from crop to my 5D, the 24-70 just locked in there and did the job for me. The ultrawide 16-35 only came out rarely, and I usually knew I would need it (interiors, huge vistas, shorelines, etc.).

It turned out later that I realized that I prefer to live in a 24-50 FF sort of space. So on my crop body, those two lenses straddled that range almost 50-50 -- hence all the changeouts.

- A

 

[mppix]

If Canon made an equal performing lens for an APSC body then it would be 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5 – very good parameters for a kit lens, don’t you think?

Not every lens is for everyone but if the optical quality is good and the pricing is right then this is gonna be a great lens to start with on an RP-ish body.
And I may consider buying it too as a travel lens due to its weight of less then 400g.

This lens may show that Canon is not going to make an APSC R body. Which would be great but I’m worried that the majority of people believe that an f/2.8 lens for APSC is better than f/4 lens for FF (which is not). Therefore they’d prefer other brands APSC’s

I was about to say this. Ff7.1 FF is still quite a bit better than f5.6 on APS-C and possibly smaller too.
If we go down that road (of small/cheaper ff lenses), it may take a while to see a aps-c R body

 

[Dragon]

Disagree. Slow means cheaper and lighter, but slow doesn't mean crop RF is coming.

If a crop sensored RF body was coming, it wouldn't be a 24-something FF sensor sized lens. It would be (a) 15-something* or 18-something and (b) have a much smaller diameter outer barrel to keep size/weight/costs down.

(*Try using an EF 24-something L on a crop body for general travel/walkabout/all-purpose shooting. You will be cursing that the wide end is too long and always reaching for your EF-S ultrawide zoom.)

- A

You clearly didn't read the post you commented on and only reinforced what he said while disagreeing with him .

 

[ahsanford]

Is this CR3?

No, but the spec leak was from a well-known Japanese leak site that tends to have the goods. That said, CR Guy has his own sources and may have corroborated this independently.

However, we still don't have a good enough view of the front element to confirm the max aperture.

Still, Nokivoldemort generally only brings the detailed specs on lenses (like weight, size, etc.) when they truly have the goods. This feels like a CR2.999 to me. Just a matter of time before it's real.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

If this f/7.1 is true, I'll be brave: We'll see an RF something-500 or something-600 for under $2k for sure now.

I didn't think it would be easily possible to keep it inexpensive with (what I expected to be the slowest on RF) f/6.3 long end, but f/7.1 changes things.

RF 150-600 f/5.6-7.1 IS STM would still have a fairly pedestrian ~ 85mm front element. That could be very inexpensive and light.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

You clearly didn't read the post you commented on and only reinforced what he said while disagreeing with him .

Wow! There's a very important "not" in the post I quoted that I completely missed.

My apologies. I deleted my post.

- A

 

[mppix]

This lens brings up a rather good point: the diffraction limited aperture of 90d and m6ii is f5.2. Assuming that Canon wants their entry line to go somewhere, they have two options: (i) make affordable FF bodies and inexpensive glass, or (ii) make "more" affordable aps-c bodies and fast(er) aps-c glass....

 

[ahsanford]

Ouch. Feels like the cripple hammer worked overtime on this one to differentiate with the L lens. You should have just made it about build quality and weather sealing Canon. That would have been enough.

Also, you could adapt EF non-L 24-105 with the control ring adaptor and get:

• an f/5.6 long end
• a dedicated focus ring
• fun RF control ring action

No cripple hammer at work there -- that's inexpensive and fully featured. Have at it.

- A

 

[Dragon]

Glass, that's why. Too pricey.

Crop image circles lenses are much much less expensive.

I still contend that RF-S lenses (i.e. crop image circle lenses) + crop RF bodies --> RF becoming 'one mount to rule them all' is a better way to go than asking the Rebel market to pony up for pricey (even budget class) FF glass.

- A

Sorry, but this lens is smaller, lighter, effectively faster, and I suspect cheaper than the EF-s 15-85 which is the closest match in EF-s glass (and BTW one of the best EF-s lenses). R will have a small and light option and M will be smaller and lighter for those who want the most portability. Once you kill the arbitrary f/5.6 limit that was imposed by classical SLR AF systems, then the issue is simply how much light the lens lets in and thus the lens size is effectively independent of the imager size. Start thinking in photons and let go of f-stop and you have your R-Rebel. DLA is the only real limit, but for the same pixel count, that is also independent of sensor size. Think about it.