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

[amorse]

Agree. 24-105s are crowd pleasers and not expensive to make.

But the rumored RF body even less expensive than the RP may lack an EVF and may not be much bigger than a deck of cards. You don't want to bolt something 80-90mm long on to it -- you want something Sony RX1R-ish in aggregate form factor.

So I still think some ultrasmall zooms (fully taking advantage of no longer being married to f/5.6 for AF) are coming -- even smaller than this one.

- A

Such as an RF 20-50 f/4-5.6 as rumoured yesterday? I honestly think they're trying to make lenses which are as cheap as or cheaper than some of the EF-S lenses because they're trying to get that kit price to ~$1000-$1200 to hit the higher end of the entry-level market - people who want a camera which can do things their cell phone can't, and have aspirations of taking incredible images, but don't want to jump in with both feet yet.

The more I think about it, the more I think Canon is going to market the RF mount as a premium line, but still have some very very bare bones offerings to get people into the transition pathway upwards. Justify a slightly higher entry-point for a camera, but market using the the ultra high-end bodies.

 

[jeffa4444]

I guess Canon now has all the bases covered with four shorter zooms in this category covering really high end (RF 28-70mm f2L), high end (RF 24-70 f2.8L mid market (RF24-105mm f4L) and low market (RF 24-105mm f4-7.1). Throw in the RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 for travel photographers on a budget and they tick all the boxes. The fast Holly Trinity is complete now they need to cover the medium speed (RF 16-35mm f4L & RF 70-200mm f4L) and they will have the major part of the zoom market covered.
The EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM is such a peach of a lens that they will need to replicate this as an RF lens to compliment the two f1.2L lenses and a nifty fifty RF must be coming.

 

[Viggo]

Where do you all live with enough light for this? I’m at f1.2 and often use around 800-1600 iso and often enough 6400-12800... cool with macro, but this has to be the worlds slowest max aperture without extenders?

 

[Dragon]

Canon seems to have fallen in love with 24-105 as the range for basic consumer normal zooms. I guess they have the marketing numbers to back it up. Being Canon, they seem unfazed by Nikon's 24-120. Apparently Canon thinks the good magic number 105 trumps the not so good magic number 7.1.

I don't see a 24-120 in Z mount. The obsolete variable aperture f mount has IQ that looks like a 15 year old Sigma or Tamron and the f/4 is too big for a carry-around lens on a mirrorless. Canon is being smart here. They are keeping the overall package small for the average user. If you want big lenses, they have them and I suspect they will have a bigger body to go along with them, but this is aimed at moving some of the Rebel crowd to FF mirrorless. If the R6 is well featured and not too expensive, I suspect the plan will work.

 

[Proscribo]

Where do you all live with enough light for this? I’m at f1.2 and often use around 800-1600 iso and often enough 6400-12800... cool with macro, but this has to be the worlds slowest max aperture without extenders?

You know the shutter speed number is actually missing the "1/" part, so dial that down from 8000, it actually makes more light hit the sensor!

 

[Laslen]

You forgot by far the most popular camera: phones. And they're often a lot worse than even this.

So your camera is going to be about as good as a phone? What's the point of buying a camera then?

Personally my phone has a f1.8 wide lens and f2.4 "telephoto."

 

[Joules]

this has to be the worlds slowest max aperture without extenders?

There are mirror lenses from third party manufacturers that are fixed at f/8 or slower.

But there it is more relevant, because they are also Tele focal length lenses. Your 50mm doesn't have IS, so keep that in mind. Especially in combination with IBIS this has the potential to make this lens work decently even under challenging conditions. It will all come down to the price, of course, but to me it makes sense that Canon is exploring the new options the RF mount gives them, even though I don't like all the things they are trying.

 

[Pape]

Where do you all live with enough light for this? I’m at f1.2 and often use around 800-1600 iso and often enough 6400-12800... cool with macro, but this has to be the worlds slowest max aperture without extenders?

i bet youll be happy about ibis body

 

[Proscribo]

You forgot by far the most popular camera: phones. And they're often a lot worse than even this.

So your camera is going to be about as good as a phone? What's the point of buying a camera then?

Personally my phone has a f1.8 wide lens and f2.4 "telephoto."

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[Joules]

Personally my phone has a f1.8 wide lens and f2.4 "telephoto."

It also has a miniscule imaging sensor that you have to take into account when comparing the amount of gathered light. We're talking about a FF lens here, and a FF sensor makes a far* greater difference than that f/7.1 vs f/1.8 aperture.

The point you're responding to was that people can great results from phones, they can get great results from APS-C cameras, and this lens on an FF lens will outperform those in many situations so it should be able to give great results as well.

*edit: I was concerned of overstating the truth here. Assuming you have a top model with one of the largest sensors available in a smartphone, a 1/2.5" model, the sensor area is about 25 mm^2 while a FF sensor is about 865 mm^2. So with your wider aperture, the relative amount of light you're getting with your smartphone in comparison is:

(25 / 865) * (1.8^(-2) / 7.1^(-2)) = 0.45

So that's a little less than the difference between APS-C and FF, but still more than a stop. And that's just noise, with this lens you'll likely still get super image quality in term of resolution and aberrations, not to mention the ability to zoom.

 

[slclick]

Ok, now we're at the point where facts are getting in the way of making a point, awesome!

 

[ahsanford]

I have the 24-70F4 lens, and it has a macro setting. Flip the switch and twist the zoom and you are now in macro mode. I don’t use it a lot, but every now and then it is very useful. Yes, I have a real macro lens, but it means carrying another chunk of glass..... and that’s the reason why I like this idea for the lens. You end up with a single lens to carry when you go walkabout, no changing lenses, no extra filters, and a lot more convenient.

+1. Not all macro is on rails in a studio setting. With my 24-70 f/4L IS, I do a ton of casual quick macro with flowers, lizards, etc. on hikes and even local walks around my home.

It's not ideal for macro, the working distance is challengingly close, it does not match the output of my 100L and ISO often needs to climb for a sharp handheld shutter (at the 'flower workable' DOF f/14 or so). But I didn't have to bring/carry the 100L with me, and I didn't miss a shot because I was changing out a lens. That's a win to me.

I still regard the EF 24-70 f/4 as a triumph in this regard. They turned my meat and potatoes sword & board fighter into a very serviceable multi-class character. That lens is a win.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

Where do you all live with enough light for this? I’m at f1.2 and often use around 800-1600 iso and often enough 6400-12800... cool with macro, but this has to be the worlds slowest max aperture without extenders?

How about F14!

Venus Optics Laowa 24mm f/14 Probe Lens for Canon EF

Buy Venus Optics Laowa 24mm f/14 Probe Lens for Canon EF featuring EF-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format, Aperture Range: f/14 to f/40, Two Extra-Low Dispersion Elements, One Extra Refractive Index Element, Magnification: 2:1 to Infinity, Min. Focus: 1.5'; Working Distance: 0.8", Long Lens Barrel...

www.bhphotovideo.com

 

[ahsanford]

The more I think about it, the more I think Canon is going to market the RF mount as a premium line, but still have some very very bare bones offerings to get people into the transition pathway upwards. Justify a slightly higher entry-point for a camera, but market using the the ultra high-end bodies.

Yeah. They have to do something on the low end as EF-S will soon die and EF-M lenses won't mount on RF.

One option is just as you say. Drop some very inexpensive breadcrumbs leading to the RF mount and see who bites.

The other option is crop RF bodies and RF-S lenses. But talk of 'one mount to rule them all' tends to incite the EF-M crowd, as RF-S lenses and crop Rebels in RF are an existential threat to EF-M.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

The EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM is such a peach of a lens that they will need to replicate this as an RF lens to compliment the two f1.2L lenses and a nifty fifty RF must be coming.

Agree with everything you said except for this last bit. Why does Canon need a third fast 85mm prime? How would an RF version of the EF 85 f/1.4L IS complement what's already in RF? IBIS is coming so that gap will be addressed, and f/1.2 vs. f/1.4 doesn't make tremendous sense unless you are living in a double gauss world (like the 50 primes).

Did you envision the f/1.2Ls just for portraiture and a future f/1.4L IS for... some other use case? Video perhaps?

- A

 

[ahsanford]

You know the shutter speed number is actually missing the "1/" part, so dial that down from 8000, it actually makes more light hit the sensor!

I was trying to find a polite way to tell Viggo that not all of us are unlit subterranean bunker photographers, but you beat me to it.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Personally my phone has a f1.8 wide lens and f2.4 "telephoto."

Is someone going to tell him/her?

- A

 

[Don Haines]

I was trying to find a polite way to tell Viggo that not all of us are unlit subterranean bunker photographers, but you beat me to it.

- A

I have done a 10,800 second exposure on film!

 

[David_E]

Macro shooters: could this lens replace other lenses in your kit, or is the magnification too low?

Magnification too low. I need 1:1 image scale or better. I use the EF100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM , the venerable EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM (unbeatable when you can’t get close), and the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro.

 

[StoicalEtcher]

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

Size, Weight, Cost.

(And I suspect a view that, taking all the above first, f7.1 gives less experienced shooters a better chance of getting their object of desire in focus - or within acceptable DOF if you prefer).