Search results

The 24-105 is not compatible with current teleconverters. It's impossible to fit anything which protrudes into the lens, independently from the zoom position (see diagram below from Canon Japan, 24 mm on the left, 105 mm on the right) as the rearmost element is fixed and located at the mount.

Interesting size comparisons (from Asobinet.com): Comparison to Nikon and Sony -600 mm zooms:

Very tempting... Might be the replacement for my EF 24-70 f/2.8 II at some point. It's rather heavy (for obvious reasons), but if it can replace a 24-105 f/4 as a general purpose lens and 1-2 faster lenses for when larger apertures are needed, weight and size are less of an issue. Internal...

This will definitely be on my list for future lenses. Positive for me: Focal length range (obviously) nano USM Weather resistance, and not just a couple of gaskets only 2 kg (for a 800 mm lens) Much shorter close focus distance than the f/11 lenses, comparable to the 100-500 mm Support of...

Yes, and not just a rubber gasket at the mount:

The Camera Insider is reporting a price of $1899 for this lens (and $2999 for the 24-105), announcement in a bit more than 5 hours, based on claims from The Ordinary Filmmaker.

All RF zoom lenses have a wider zoom ring than focus ring. The 28-70 being (maybe) an exception if one only considers the rubberized part of the ring. Also, for all RF zooms with a ring on the tapered part of the lens, that ring is the the zoom ring, never the focus ring. It could be that Canon...

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...

That's correct, but the definition of "mount" used in the Lensrentals article (I assume that you are referring to the article of December 2013) is: the mount is the internal part of the lens where the bayonet — the metal part that twists into the camera — attaches by several screws So in the...

That must be wrong, the specification table on Canon Japan's site (https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf28-f28/spec.html) indicates that minimum aperture is f/22.

If we take simulated (!) sharpness and contrast into account, this lens doesn't look bad. This is the MTF chart for the 28 mm f/2.8 lens: And this ist the chart for the 16 mm f/2.8 (I am taking this one since it's an f/2.8 lens) All other non-L fixed focal length lenses also have worse MTF...

Those are "precision plastic molded" lenses, so likely manufactured using injection molding, which is the cheapest manufacturing method (for larger volume)

Nice pancake lens with a lot af aspheric magic happening inside: I also would have preferred a wider focal length to get close to 35 mm on APS-C bodies, but for those Canon might do an RF-S version of the EF-M 22 mm. The R100 won't be on my personal list, but $200 less than the R50 might be...

US Patent and patent applications can be browsed with the online tool provided by the USPTO (https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/). It works with Chrome but it doesn't work with Safari. I don't know if it works with other browsers. To search for all Canon patents and patent applications, type for...

You are right, it's a 2.8-5.6 design (see also https://digicame-info.com/2023/04/aps-c15-70mm-f28-4-is15-70mm-f.html). I attached the US patent application which is easier to read.

Sure, but what are the tradeoffs Canon has to make in lens design to accommodate the limitations of the RF mount? The design choices made for RF lenses are choices, they are not imposed by the RF mount. The RF mount does not make it impossible to design a 70-200 or 100-500 compatible with TCs...

Agreed, but that was a reply to a comment referring to a specific sentence in an earlier post. And the original post was about the RF mount having limitations, which is not the case.

Probably I should have written "None of the RF optical designs in the mentioned focal lengths would have been possible with the EF mount". Would that have been clearer? I was referring to "design" as the whole design of the lens including the optical construction, not just the focal length or...

Because the rear elements would then be inside the mount and might even block the mirror path. Sorry, I don't have the time to start measuring if the latter would be the case. I didn't say that a 100-500 mm wouldn't be possible, what I meant is that the actual design of the RF 100-500 mm would...

I have to disagree on this one: The RF mount does not bring limitations, it brings more options. With more options you have to make choices, and Canon has made choices which do not fit everybody's needs. One could argue that the EF 70-200 f/4 is a compromised lens as it is heavier and bulkier...