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

[StoicalEtcher]

Where do you all live with enough light for this?

South of the Artic circle, Viggo, where it is always sunny

 

[slclick]

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

Whoa! I've done an 1800 second exposure for brushed emulsion on paper in sunlight but 3 hours?

 

[preppyak]

Im assuming we're looking at similar prices to Sony's 28-70; hopefully not similar optical performance.

Its weird that the 24-240 is brighter while not being wildly heavier despite containing more than double the range.

 

[Pape]

Im assuming we're looking at similar prices to Sony's 28-70; hopefully not similar optical performance.

Its weird that the 24-240 is brighter while not being wildly heavier despite containing more than double the range.

Macro lenses always bit dimmer,maybe compromises for quality or focus breath

 

[masterpix]

Continue reading...

Question, when they will make extention tubes for R lenses? I use extention tubes with my EF lenses to create marco photogrpahy.

 

[Don Haines]

Whoa! I've done an 1800 second exposure for brushed emulsion on paper in sunlight but 3 hours?

Star trails...... and it was a total failure

 

[Viggo]

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

There is such a thing as faster than tripod-needed shutter speeds

 

[Laslen]

Is someone going to tell him/her?

- A

Tell me what? Google iPhone X/11 Pro specs.

You guys are living in the past if you think smartphones aren't a threat to cameras. Canon and Sony certainly believe they are.

 

[TMACIOSZEK]

Tell me what? Google iPhone X/11 Pro specs.

You guys are living in the past if you think smartphones aren't a threat to cameras. Canon and Sony certainly believe they are.

Are you using your phone to shoot a wedding? Perhaps a sporting event? If so, I pity your customers. Now if you're just taking pictures of your kids, sure, that cell camera is awesomesauce.

 

[jvillain]

The good new is you will never have to worry about being out of focus.

 

[David_E]

...Now if you're just taking pictures of your kids, sure, that cell camera is awesomesauce.

Or if you want to win an Oscar for a motion picture shot mostly on an iPhone (Searching for Sugar Man). Or make photos like these or like these. To paraphrase TMACIOSZEK, you're living in the past if you think that the iPhone camera is suitable only for snapshots of the kids.

 

[dwarven]

You can always get a lens extender. Many macro lenses only go to :5 mag, but extend that to 1:1 with an extender. Otherwise the mechanics get complicated, and more expensive. It’s cheaper to buy an extender if you really need 1:1.

Eh, I'd rather just go with the real thing. $650 isn't going to break the bank.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1233541-REG/tamron_sp_90mm_f_2_8_di.html

 

[Optics Patent]

Canon already has the RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM so why make a RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 IS USM?

It may be an appealing alternative to a heavy $1000 lens for some buyers who are not you.

 

[preppyak]

Macro lenses always bit dimmer,maybe compromises for quality or focus breath

Yeah, though with only .4x macro at 105mm, Im not sure you can excuse f/7.1 in any way.

The 24-105 STM did .3x while being f/3.5-5.6 and only maybe 25% heavier; which presumably could have been shaved a little just because of RF (the RF 24-105 f/4 shaved ~10% off its EF counterpart). I guess I'm just not seeing any way to explain this lens other than "it'll cost $199 max"

 

[Laslen]

Are you using your phone to shoot a wedding? Perhaps a sporting event? If so, I pity your customers. Now if you're just taking pictures of your kids, sure, that cell camera is awesomesauce.

I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about the potential customer base for this lens.

It just doesn't seem logical for Canon. They saw complaints online "there are no affordable lenses for RF!" so they went "Okay, here we go $300 24-105 f7.1!" Nobody is going to want it. It seems like an ill-advised reactionary move that I would expect more from Sony than Canon. A 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 for $300 would've made much more sense.

 

[preppyak]

Or if you want to win an Oscar for a motion picture shot mostly on an iPhone (Searching for Sugar Man). Or make photos like these or like these. To paraphrase TMACIOSZEK, you're living in the past if you think that the iPhone camera is suitable only for snapshots of the kids.

There's a massive difference between "mostly shot" and "a few pickup shoots"...you'd make a stronger argument running with something like Tangerine which was shot entirely on an iPhone

 

[Travel_Photographer]

As far as exposure is concerned f2.8 on an APS-C lens is the same as f2.8 on a FF lens and 4.0 on a FF lens is the same as 4.0 on an aps-c lens. So, for exposure, f7.1 on the 24-105 will be 2/3 of a stop slower than F5.6 on an aps-c.

Thank you. I was about to write the same thing.

When referring to one lens being "faster" than another, there is no "equivalent" aperture that is calculated for a Full Frame vs APS-C. The aperture is the aperture. F7.1 is always slower than F5.6 regardless of the sensor size. By "slower" I'm of course referring only to the shutter speed needed for the exposure. We don't "multiply" an APS-C aperture by 1.6x to get a full-frame equivalent. It's the same. F5.6 on APS-C is not, as far as exposure and the lens being "fast", equivalent to F8.96 on Full-Frame.

From a Depth of Field perspective, yes, there is a difference between F7.1 on APS-C vs Full-Frame, but since 90% of the comments related to this seem to be dealing with shutter speed, exposure, dimness, and ISO (not DoF), it's important to make the point.

All that said, I have no problem with an F7.1 lens if the benefit is size and weight. I personally shoot at F8 or narrower a good deal of the time. My guess is that Canon feels the better high ISO noise performance and image stabilization of these cameras and lenses both help significantly negate any downsides of the narrower aperture. For someone looking specifically for narrow DoF, this is probably not your lens. But for most uses, by using a little higher ISO and / or IS it's likely a great addition.

 

[TMACIOSZEK]

Or if you want to win an Oscar for a motion picture shot mostly on an iPhone (Searching for Sugar Man). Or make photos like these or like these. To paraphrase TMACIOSZEK, you're living in the past if you think that the iPhone camera is suitable only for snapshots of the kids.

Well you should certainly sell all your digital camera equipment and just use your cell phone. Good luck with that.

 

[TMACIOSZEK]

I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about the potential customer base for this lens.

It just doesn't seem logical for Canon. They saw complaints online "there are no affordable lenses for RF!" so they went "Okay, here we go $300 24-105 f7.1!" Nobody is going to want it. It seems like an ill-advised reactionary move that I would expect more from Sony than Canon. A 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 for $300 would've made much more sense.

They are just putting out cheap lenses for the "starter" shooter. Anyone that buys this lens for general shooting will soon grow frustrated with it's lack of usefulness and start looking to upgrade.

 

[ahsanford]

Tell me what? Google iPhone X/11 Pro specs.

You guys are living in the past if you think smartphones aren't a threat to cameras. Canon and Sony certainly believe they are.

Cell phones take lovely pictures. They absolutely are a threat to general consumer-grade dedicated cameras, sure.

But even an aging 5D2 with a nifty fifty would mop the floor with a modern cell phone as far as stills go.

That 'quick' f/1.8 or f/2 cell phone lens you referenced scales to something horrific in FF terms, like f/10 or narrower for DOF equivalence. Such an instrument is (effectively) always shooting stopped down compared to the FF shooting experience. In comparison, even this thread's 'embarrassment' of an f/7.1 lens on an RF mount body would give better subject isolation than your cell phone, focus faster, will work far better in low light, it will be more responsive, etc.

Cell phones are great, but they simply can't do all the things the larger sensored platforms can (other than go more places with you).

- A