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

[Dragon]

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

Now you have the formula! I agree, the long zoom will be small and light and I suspect quite sharp wide open (which most of the competition is not). This is one of the nice features of the relatively slow M lenses. You never have to stop them down to get sharp pictures. It looks like that formula is being moved to FF for the mainstream users and I suspect it will work well. DPAF is the killer feature that makes all this possible.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

That's not exactly apples to oranges in your comparison, though. The EF-S 15-85 was effectively a pro feature-set lens design in a crop image circle package. It has Ring USM, FTM mechanical focusing, dedicated focusing ring, distance scale, etc. and it clocks in at nearly twice the weight of this thread's rumored lens.

A more appropriate comparison (focal lengths be damned) might be one of the EF-M standard zooms -- all plastic, all FBW, relatively de-featured, etc.

I still contend RF-S lenses + crop RF bodies are a better way to go if Rebels are coming to RF. The soccer moms and hockey dads who want to shoot their kid at a sporting event or concert don't want to have to bring a large and expensive lens to reach them. Crop helps both in image circle size and the crop reach itself to let folks go further with less weight, cost, diameter and length.

- A

 

[brad-man]

Now you have the formula! I agree, the long zoom will be small and light and I suspect quite sharp wide open (which most of the competition is not). This is one of the nice features of the relatively slow M lenses. You never have to stop them down to get sharp pictures. It looks like that formula is being moved to FF for the mainstream users and I suspect it will work well. DPAF is the killer feature that makes all this possible.

 

[Dragon]

That's not exactly apples to oranges in your comparison, though. The EF-S 15-85 was effectively a pro feature-set lens design in a crop image circle package. It has Ring USM, FTM mechanical focusing, dedicated focusing ring, distance scale, etc. and it clocks in at nearly twice the weight of this thread's rumored lens.

A more appropriate comparison (focal lengths be damned) might be one of the EF-M standard zooms -- all plastic, all FBW, relatively de-featured, etc.

I still contend RF-S lenses + crop RF bodies are a better way to go if Rebels are coming to RF. The soccer moms and hockey dads who want to shoot their kid at a sporting event or concert don't want to have to bring a large and expensive lens to reach them. Crop helps both in image circle size and the crop reach itself to let folks go further with less weight, cost, diameter and length.

- A

Read carefully what I said. Your argument for reach with crop sensors implies smaller pixels and hence a need for larger aperture to avoid DLA issues. The same objective size and aperture diameter will put the same amount of light on a FF sensor with the same pixel count. To get the reach, the lens may have to be longer, but not bigger in diameter and likely not much heavier. The FF lens will be "slower" in f-stop terms, but the IQ should theoretically be the same as the crop camera with the same objective size. My gut says crop frame is going to be relegated to M as SLRs wind down and if Canon is planning on keeping M (which I think they are), then you may seem some interesting developments there as well. One interesting twist is that you can overcome the flange distance issue by adding magnification (that's how you can adapt an FD lens to EF), so R lenses could be used on M with added reach. Not suggesting that will happen, just noting that generally accepted "can't dos" are not necessarily as hard and fast as they are touted to be.

In any case, this is all still in the speculative category and the next year will give us more insight into what Canon's plan is. A piece of the puzzle is going to be relative cost of sensors. If they have made a breakthrough in fab, then FF sensors may be more affordable than in the past and I suspect they would rather get someone started on a FF body so those big, expensive lenses can be fully utilized (and thus be attractive).

 

[ritholtz]

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

I need to sell 6d2 kit and get ready for smaller and lighter R gear. There is no need of one M setup (M50) and FF setup (6D2).

 

[Dragon]

View attachment 188613

. F/22 is a bit over the top even for DPAF which works well to about f/11, but humor aside, that is idea. Interestingly, the aperture of the 40mm f/2.8 would result in about f/10 at 140mm, so still in the realm of feasibility, but the objective would be somewhat bigger and the lens longer but still tiny in classical 140mm terms.

 

[i_SH]

I am ashamed of this expected new product from Canon. More than 20 years ago, it released the EF 24-85 / 3.5-4.5 USM with the same 67 mm filter, smaller dimensions and a weight of 380 grams. And with its advertised bayonet mount it produces such junk. It would be better if they re-released what they already had, and don’t need a built-in pseudo-macro, release a couple of macro rings!

 

[Dragon]

I am ashamed of this expected new product from Canon. More than 20 years ago, it released the EF 24-85 / 3.5-4.5 USM with the same 67 mm filter, smaller dimensions and a weight of 380 grams. And with its advertised bayonet mount it produces such junk. It would be better if they re-released what they already had, and don’t need a built-in pseudo-macro, release a couple of macro rings!

Not sure what your point is. The 24-85 doesn't have IS and 85 is notably less than 105, but the size and weight are similar. The 24-85 is soggy in the corners unless you stop it way down and you have no idea what the IQ of this new lens will be. If it produces lousy images, that is the time to be ashamed. If it produces great images, then maybe pride would be in order. I suspect it will be good enough to support the 45MP imager in the R5 and that will make it a LOT better than the old 24-85.

 

[Traveler]

I am ashamed of this expected new product from Canon. More than 20 years ago, it released the EF 24-85 / 3.5-4.5 USM with the same 67 mm filter, smaller dimensions and a weight of 380 grams. And with its advertised bayonet mount it produces such junk. It would be better if they re-released what they already had, and don’t need a built-in pseudo-macro, release a couple of macro rings!

Well, that “pseudo-macro” function can be handy for a lot of beginners. Remember beginners often tend to buy just one lens to start with. And a lot of people are disappointed that their “expensive” camera can’t take close-up’s unlike their cellphones.
If they get serious about it, they can buy a proper macro lens later. And spend thousands of dollars for other lenses as many of us do

 

[Chaitanya]

And the 100L is f/2.8 (as is the non-L predecessor), not f/7.1

Here are some shots taken using 100mm Macro either at f11 or lower with last photo of Hump nosed pit viper shot on 5D mk 4. Unless someone is using macro lens for portraits I dont know anyone who uses macro lenses at apertures wider than f/8.
Amphiesma beddomei (2) by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr
IMG_9413 by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr
IMG_9527 by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr
Coelognathus helena monticollaris by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr
Hump nosed pit viper by Chaitanya Shukla by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr

 

[Pape]

Will be amazing light weight ,and razor sharp on 105mm what others arent.
And first ever made 0,5x focus breath free lense for focus stacking. If focusin works with manual override and it autos after that.
With hand hold R6.R5 super focus stack crop burst mode this will be amazing
I am already using manual override when shooting focus stack so can get start point little front of bug. other ways closest point may stay unsharp if its very round like head.

 

[Richard CR]

Canon now has;

RF 24-70 F2.8
RF 28-70 F2.0
RF 24-105 F4.0
RF 24-105 F4-7.1

If one of them doesn't meet your needs, surely there's one that does already - in a mount that is less than two years old.

F7.1 means a lot of ISO 6400 shooting. So what? in most cases: any modern Canon sensor produces ISO 6400 images that are more than adequate for the average consumer.

I've shot a lot with the M's and yes, you do a lot F6.3 shooting. I didn't;

a) go home when it was cloudy
b) stop shooting when the sun went down
c) shake with fear at the thought of shooting indoors.

and this is what? 1/3 - 2/3's of a stop better than the M's running at F/6.3?

While sure, you can't get 100% blowups from F7.1 and ISO 6400 - you can get more than good enough images though.

 

[Antono Refa]

Well, that “pseudo-macro” function can be handy for a lot of beginners. Remember beginners often tend to buy just one lens to start with.

There are plenty of beginners who never upgrade their lenses, plenty of beginners who buy a two or three lenses kit, and plenty who do both.

And a lot of people are disappointed that their “expensive” camera can’t take close-up’s unlike their cellphones.

There is sufficient demand for background blur for cellphone manufacturers to fake the effect. Buyers might be disappointed their FF camera and lens can't deliver that.

I hope Canon did the market research on this.

If they get serious about it, they can buy a proper macro lens later. And spend thousands of dollars for other lenses as many of us do

People who upgrade lenses, esp for that much money, are a minority. With market trends being what they are, Canon shouldn't bet on that group gaining significantly more membership.

 

[mb66energy]

f=7.1is a hard one to swallow.

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

With a three stop real world image stabilization effect this translates to f/2.4 equivalence for the "light gathering efficiency".
I think it fails while trying to get reasonably sharp images of objects in motion or if you need some separation between object and background!

So I am with you: f/7.1 is hard to swallow - a setup with two RPs and the RF 35 and a hypothetical RF 100 2.0 IS Macro would be my favorite highly flexible companion.

 

[Pape]

Canon now has;

RF 24-70 F2.8
RF 28-70 F2.0
RF 24-105 F4.0
RF 24-105 F4-7.1

If one of them doesn't meet your needs, surely there's one that does already - in a mount that is less than two years old.

F7.1 means a lot of ISO 6400 shooting. So what? in most cases: any modern Canon sensor produces ISO 6400 images that are more than adequate for the average consumer.

I've shot a lot with the M's and yes, you do a lot F6.3 shooting. I didn't;

a) go home when it was cloudy
b) stop shooting when the sun went down
c) shake with fear at the thought of shooting indoors.

and this is what? 1/3 - 2/3's of a stop better than the M's running at F/6.3?

While sure, you can't get 100% blowups from F7.1 and ISO 6400 - you can get more than good enough images though.

And dont forget 8 stop image stabilation!

 

[ahsanford]

I am ashamed of this expected new product from Canon. More than 20 years ago, it released the EF 24-85 / 3.5-4.5 USM with the same 67 mm filter, smaller dimensions and a weight of 380 grams. And with its advertised bayonet mount it produces such junk. It would be better if they re-released what they already had, and don’t need a built-in pseudo-macro, release a couple of macro rings!

Apparently re-releasing a lens someone can't stand would do better than the one we're talking about here. Sure. That tracks.

It's amazing how a number -- 7.1 in this case -- has folks clutching their pearls so hard.

It's like everyone forgot that in the fifteen months since EOS R came out, we already have a trinity of f/2.8L IS zooms, some skull-splittingly sharp L primes and a toy howitzer of an f/2 zoom.

The high end got a ton of fan service with all the initial lens offerings. And that will surely continue. But small, light and inexpensive get their turn now. I see nothing wrong with that.

- A

 

[SteveC]

Here are some shots taken using 100mm Macro either at f11 or lower with last photo of Hump nosed pit viper shot on 5D mk 4. Unless someone is using macro lens for portraits I dont know anyone who uses macro lenses at apertures wider than f/8.
Amphiesma beddomei (2) by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr
IMG_9413 by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr
IMG_9527 by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr
Coelognathus helena monticollaris by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr
Hump nosed pit viper by Chaitanya Shukla by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr

Personally, I'd only want to take macros of pit vipers with a 3,000 millimeter lens or greater.

(Edit: Unless, of course, there's zoo glass between me and the venomous beastie.)

(Another Edit:

I routinely shoot macro at f/5.6, but in my case I'm shooting a fairly flat object through a layer of plastic that's often scratched. f/5.6 generally puts the object in focus but the scratches out of focus. But, as I have said upthread, my situation is extremely unusual.

 

[ahsanford]

Well, that “pseudo-macro” function can be handy for a lot of beginners. Remember beginners often tend to buy just one lens to start with. And a lot of people are disappointed that their “expensive” camera can’t take close-up’s unlike their cellphones.
If they get serious about it, they can buy a proper macro lens later. And spend thousands of dollars for other lenses as many of us do

+1.

0.7x Macro on the EF 24-70 f/4L IS USM is a great feature. I own that lens and use the macro often (impromptu handheld macro on hikes and walkabouts), even though I also own the EF 100L.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Here are some shots taken using 100mm Macro either at f11 or lower with last photo of Hump nosed pit viper shot on 5D mk 4. Unless someone is using macro lens for portraits I dont know anyone who uses macro lenses at apertures wider than f/8.

Point taken, I almost never use my 100L (at macro distances) at f/2.8. It's always stopped down quite a bit.

But some might shoot a 100 macro a hair wider than f/8 (say f/5.6 or so, where the lens is sharpest) for focus stacking.

- A

 

[.jan]

gosh that would have been so cool as a f/5.6 but f/7.1 seems a bit too dark for most applications.