Canon RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z to be announced this week
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Upvote
0
I will shoot in the sun all day regularly with 2 cameras. One camera will have my 100-500 or 300mm lens in white and the other camera will have another lens that compliments the other - usually the 300mm/135mm or 100-500/24-105. The black lens can end up too hot to touch on a regular basis. So this BS that white doesn’t have any affect is just that, BS. Fuji, Sony, Canon, and Olympus all do it. Nikon doesn’t…perhaps they didn’t want to copy Canon when they originally did it in the film era? But it’s pretty clear to me that Canon was right.And I (humbly...) disagree with Nikon.
I've been to Death Valley in summertime with Leica R4 and the (black!) Apo Telyt 3,4/180. After a few hundred yards, I could no longer touch the camera and the lens. Back at the hotel, I noticed that the front lens of the Apo Telyt was cracked (no effect on pictures, fortunately). So, may Nikon say what they want to say, I rather rely on Canon's choice of white color for long lenses.
Since, the second time I visited Death Valley in August (didn't have the choice), I took the 5 DIII and the EF 100-400. Couldn't touch the body again (and yet I did it), but the lens still could be used without burnt fingers. And no front lens cracks...
Metal and plastics (sorry, high quality polymers) expand, and long teles or zooms are made of them.
PS: even in my Nikon times, manufactoring quality of moderate focal lengths Nikkors never convinced me. Aluminium and aluminium helicoids, with wide gaps filled with grease were not a proof of mechanical quality. Narrow machining tolerances cost...As much as I loved the F2, compared to Leica or Zeiss lenses, the Nikkors were optically very good, but in my perception poorly engineered. Just take a look at a 30 years old Nikkor lens, when grease has gone.
Upvote
0
Before the others started copying it, it made Canon shooters at sporting events stand out, which in turn made Canon marketing people very happy.
Upvote
0
It'll be heavy. The IQ could struggle at one end or both ends.
If I wanted that range I could easily have a better, lighter time with the 24-70 and a 100mm macro.
Upvote
0
The focus ring also looks odd. Canon has been consistent with the texture of the various rings on RF lenses (with the exception of the dual-purpose rings on certain non-L lenses which use the control ring texture for two functions), and this one looks more like an EF-lens focus ring. Except they are planning some external focus control accessory for video which requires better "grip"on the focus ring.
There are some other atypical features: The tripod foot seems very long for such a lens, the button layout is identical to that of 70-200 lenses, there seems to be a ribbed ring just in front of the foot collar. The lens is also very long for a maximum focal length of 105 mm, and the length is atypical for a lens starting at 24 mm. Without the headline I would say that this is an internal zooming 70-200. There is also some misalignment of certain parts, but that might be due to the poor picture quality.
But maybe this is the real thing, tomorrow we will know more.
Personally I was hoping for an "M" (for macro) instead of a "Z"
Upvote
0
Pardon me while I wheel out my old soapbox :-D
I don't really see the point of f/2.8 trinity any more.
1) We don't need it for viewfinder brightness.
2) We don't need it for autofocus.
3) We don't need it to avoid grain/noise or to freeze motion on moving subjects. (Current sensors are fantastically low-noise at high ISO.)
4) We don't need it to shoot still subjects that would otherwise require a tripod (50/1.8 on R5 shoots about as well at 1/2 sec as at any speed above 1/30)
5) We don't need it to make subjects pop from backgrounds. (It used to be that focus was never great, lenses weren't so high resolution, film was grainy, exposures were blurred by camera shake, and so even the SUBJECT was pretty blurry. Because of those factors, we didn't use images in big sizes. In order to make the background visibly yet blurrier at this low print size, f/2.8 sometimes helped to make the subject stand out. But now, we prepare every shot even for our personal social media to be 15" (38cm) wide. The sensors are practically noiseless. The AF is utterly nailed to the subject eyes. Lenses can do 50lp/mm or better at very high contrast. Sensors are noise-free up to ISO 4000+. IBIS saves us with camera shake. The subject is absolutely clear as a bell and even f/4 (wider shots) or 72mm aperture (tele) gives us more pop at these large image sizes than we ever got at f/2.8 in the old days.
------------
Anyway, I do get the utility of 24-105. For me I've been shooting 24-105/4 instead of 24-70/2.8 pretty much exclusively for 15 years now, despite shooting 24-70/2.8s since they were 28-70s... 24-105 is a a great shooting range.
I just don't see the need for f/2.8 for it though.
The EF MkI 24-105/4 was a good size but soft. The EF MkII was bigger and better IQ. I'd summarize the RF MkI as being the EF MkI size with EF MkII image quality. I'd like to see them make a higher image quality RF MkII, even if substantially bigger and more expensive, and I'd buy it instantly.
So, I've had a 14-500mm trinity for a couple years now and love it. I do love the big apertures too like the 135/1.8 and would order a 35/1.0 or 35/1.2 instantly, for special projects, but I don't need f-stop bigger than f/4 or aperture greater than 72mm in general. f/4 and 72mm do everything I need to.
Upvote
0
This is insane to me. It isn't our fault Canon won't release middle line lenses. The current "cheap" 35 and 50 are so bad. They focus so slowly. So loudly. They are built and feel as if one knock could break them. There is more to a lens than the aperture. A wide aperture simply goes along with L quality build and features unfortunately.
Upvote
0
I do, too. I think it's about saving face. They bashed Canon's use of fluorite elements, then they caved and started using them (who knows, maybe they wanted to all along but had trouble growing the crystals). Regardless, copying Canon's use of something inside the lens is one thing, copying their white lenses would be a step too far. As it is now, with Sony's long lenses being white as well, Nikon's black lenses stand out on the sidelines like Canon's white ones used too.
Complete tangent, but Mac laptops have been silver and more recently gray for a long time, standing out from the generic black PCs. Now the new M3 Macs come in black...
Upvote
0
On RF lenses, the focus ring has narrow ribbing and the zoom ring has wide ribbing. Assuming that holds true, then the focus ring is wider and closer to the body, while the zoom ring is narrower and further away. Either Canon swapped the texture of the rings for this lens compared to other RF lenses, or they changed the relative sizes of the rings (usually the zoom ring is larger or the same size as the focus ring).
The tripod foot looks odd, generally. Evidently it's a new design.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
