Patent: Canon RF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,212
113
Germany
#21
... eventually jump to R, but only when I see a killer feature/spec ...
Personally I see that the new AF system seems to be very powerful and we haven't seen it's true potential yet.
We will see it with a 5D4 successor in the R system (?) or an 1DX2 equivalent body.

Until then my only true question is if there will be a 5D5 or if Canon will evolve the R system so fast, that the EOS D / EF system is already about to die.
Future will tell and it will be an interseting one. :)
 

YuengLinger

EOS 6D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
2,089
116
Southeastern USA
#22
How did you make the leap from: "Seems like they took cues from smart phones…" to:
I eats my spinach, is all.

Smartphone users enjoy having an adequate camera on a device they have with them all the time. To think having a FF camera body with controls similar to a smartphone would overcome the size issues, and to sacrifice excellent ergonomics developed over several decades just to appeal to smartphone fans, is seeing the problem through a badly distorted lens.

I don't need to drive a car that has a touch-pad instead of a steering wheel to know I prefer a steering wheel. We don't have to try EVERYTHING to know we wouldn't like it. Take tetanus, for another example.

Certainly the R appears to be usable and will take great photos. But it also has some head-scratching ergonomics.

As for the ef 24-70mm f/4L IS, to me it seemed like an answer to a question few photographers had asked. Certainly IS would be welcome on an f/2.8 version, but f/4 is just a stop too slow for flexible event use, and 70mm just too short for a well-rounded portrait or travel lens.
 
Last edited:
Likes: navastronia
#25
About that lens: f/4 with a FF body AND IS is a great combination to have (1) a compact setup at (2) reasonable price and (3) with strong reserves for static objects in low light - if it has excellent IQ (and at least very good IQ in the corners) and costs around 1000 EUR it will be a dream lens for common photography and especially landscape/townscape.
 
Likes: Aaron D

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,393
449
Canada
#26
I eats my spinach, is all.

Smartphone users enjoy having an adequate camera on a device they have with them all the time. To think having a FF camera body with controls similar to a smartphone would overcome the size issues, and to sacrifice excellent ergonomics developed over several decades just to appeal to smartphone fans, is seeing the problem through a badly distorted lens.

I don't need to drive a car that has a touch-pad instead of a steering wheel to know I prefer a steering wheel. We don't have to try EVERYTHING to know we wouldn't like it. Take tetanus, for another example.

Certainly the R appears to be usable and will take great photos. But it also has some head-scratching ergonomics.

As for the ef 24-70mm f/4L IS, to me it seemed like an answer to a question few photographers had asked. Certainly IS would be welcome on an f/2.8 version, but f/4 is just a stop too slow for flexible event use, and 70mm just too short for a well-rounded portrait or travel lens.
Interesting......

I chose the 24-70F4 as my walk-about lens over the 24-105 because it is a sharper lens and has the Macro function, and F4 is a lot lighter to carry around than F2.8, but that's just me....

BTW, my better half has the 24-105 and prefers my 24-70....
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
117
99
#27
I think a lens like this would be a better match for the R than the 24-105 which is a significantly bigger and heavier lens.

Although the EF version is good overall, it has some glaring weaknesses. If they ditch the “macro” function and provide better IQ at normal MFD, a potential RF version could be a real winner.
I hope they WON'T make without the macro function, which I often use when leaving home for the woods with one single lens!
 

4fun

EOS M6
Nov 19, 2018
139
37
#29
RF 24-70/4 IS STM for 499 should have been the very first RF (kit) lens really. It would go well with the mirrorfree 6D III. Instead of the 28-70/2.0 folly.

Nikon got that one right for Z mount. But then, they also did the f/0.95 manual focus lens lunacy. o_O
 
Sep 6, 2013
34
2
#30
I bought the EF24-70 F4 IS instead of the EF24-105 F4 IS because it was sharper and had less barrel distortion. Zooms with shorter ranges usually outperform those with longer ranges. I'm guessing the RF24-70 F4 IS will outperform than the RF24-105 F4 IS at all focal lengths.
 

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,393
449
Canada
#31
I hope they WON'T make without the macro function, which I often use when leaving home for the woods with one single lens!
My standard pelican case for paddling (when there are not long portages) is a 7D2 with a Tamron 150-600 G2 and a 6D2 with a 24-70F4. Go long, or go wide and/or close....
 
Sep 26, 2018
7
4
#33
Personally I'm much more excited about an RF 24-70 f2.8 IS... I'm not holding out much hope anymore that we'll ever see that lens in EF though...

I wonder how many photographers are using a 24-70 with APS-C?
24mm is not really wide enough for an all-purpose zoom on APS-C. You could almost make the argument for a 2.8, but at f4 I think it's a hard range to sell. I love my 18-135 EF-S, but I think even the 18-55 EF-S is a better choice on crop sensors.
 
Likes: YuengLinger
#35
The more time passes the more I wonder if the R was just rushed out the door so that they'd have something to show against Nikon's z6/z7. The new lenses for the RF mount are all spectacular, except for that one.
I actually own an EOS R, so there's no wondering on my part about the body, or the RF 50mm and EF lenses I'm using with it. I barely pick up my 5DS lately, and already have some funds set aside for the next EOS R pro upgrade. But I won't be selling the first EOS R. Pretty hard to imagine the EOS R being "rushed out the door" when it includes some features even Sony doesn't have, and makes EF lenses function even better than before. Not a perfect camera, but far from a rushed camera. At least in my experience with using it.

A new RF 24-70 f/4 sounds nice if it has IS, but I'm curious what feature it may offer that sets it apart from the RF 24-105mm because that lens is stellar.
 
Nov 19, 2018
139
37
#36
A new RF 24-70 f/4 sounds nice if it has IS, but I'm curious what feature it may offer that sets it apart from the RF 24-105mm because that lens is stellar.
size and price, hopefully.

RF 24-105 is far from "stellar". it is "decent". 40% higher price than EF Mk. II, but IQ, size, weight not really better. IQ is behind Sony.

Personally i'd prefer a "decent IQ", compact and well-affordable (500 €) "non-L" RF 24-85/4 IS STM rather than a 24-70 4 L at more than a grand. the (very good) Nikon Z 24-70/4 is about 600 in kit with Z6. will be interesting to see comparison, if/when Canon launches the lens.
 
Last edited:

jd7

EOS Rebel SL2
Feb 3, 2013
641
45
#37
size and price, hopefully.

RF 24-105 is far from "stellar". it is "decent", but IQ is not really better than the EF versions and a bit behind the Sony. the RF also fails to deliver on the potential for more compact lens designs possible with the new short FFD mount.It is not noticably smaller or lighter than the EF versions.given the much higher price the RF 24-105 is "ok" at best.
I know that was TDP's conclusion too, but the RF 24-105 images I've seen around the internet have made me think the RF 24-105 is a step up on the EF versions. It looks pretty good to me. In fact, of the four the RF lenses so far, I think this is probably the one I'd be most keen to get (given the photography I do). R + RF 24-105 would be similar size and weight to my 6DII + 24-70/4 and I'd like the extra reach, although I'd miss the macro feature. Anyway, I'm keen to hear opinions about the RF 24-105 from people who have it and have or have had an EF version.
 
Dec 20, 2012
2,089
116
Southeastern USA
#38
I know that was TDP's conclusion too, but the RF 24-105 images I've seen around the internet have made me think the RF 24-105 is a step up on the EF versions. It looks pretty good to me. In fact, of the four the RF lenses so far, I think this is probably the one I'd be most keen to get (given the photography I do). R + RF 24-105 would be similar size and weight to my 6DII + 24-70/4 and I'd like the extra reach, although I'd miss the macro feature. Anyway, I'm keen to hear opinions about the RF 24-105 from people who have it and have or have had an EF version.
I hope that TDP had bad luck with its copy of the 24-105. (Did he try more than one?) Releasing a mediocre lens with the EOS R just doesn't seem to fit the story Canon is trying to tell about the potential of the RF mount. But then Canon disappointed with version two of the same lens, so, hard to know from the consumer's point of view.

I've certainly bought lenses that make reviews seem flat out wrong, but usually wrong about how good a lens is. Take the Tamron 45mm, for example. Please. Just take it. (OK, I must have had a bad copy!)
 
Feb 13, 2013
290
13
36
Czech Republic
#39
I'm just trying to pick between EF 24-70/4 and 24-105/4 Mk.II. It is tough call... I like additional reach of the second one but the first one seems to be considered a sharper lens - not sure how much it is actually visible in real world situations.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
117
99
#40
My standard pelican case for paddling (when there are not long portages) is a 7D2 with a Tamron 150-600 G2 and a 6D2 with a 24-70F4. Go long, or go wide and/or close....
Mine is similar: 100-400 L IS 2 + 24-70/f4 + 1,4 Ext.
So, if I don't want to carry heavy, I can cover macro + wide (24mm) to tele (560mm). And believe me or not, 1:1 macro is rarely needed, and hard to achieve without a tripod (heavy!).
As to macro quality of the 24-70/f4, I consider it to be quite good, my other macro lenses for comparison being the Leica Apo Macro Ellmarit 100/f2,8 and the Zeiss 50/f2 Makro Planar.