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

Dec 6, 2018
9
17
#61
RF 24-105 is optically not better than EF Mk. II, but 40% more expensive. RF is optically slightly behind Sony 24-105. No amount of fuzzy logic will change that. facts are facts.
The only fuzzy logic I saw were your price quotes that don't align with well known sellers. You broken record of price estimation is still revolving if I keep doing the price checks again. As for quality, your assessment doesn't alight either with actual photos. You may be looking at stat sheets, but tangible real examples prove otherwise. Referring mostly to canon vs. canon that is. Canon vs. Sony, apparently Canon is made in Japan and offers an added extra control ring multiplying functionality, whereas Sony is made in China, and apparently functions very good.
 
Last edited:

jd7

EOS T7i
Feb 3, 2013
661
56
#62
RF 24-105 is optically not better than EF Mk. II, but 40% more expensive. RF is optically slightly behind Sony 24-105. No amount of fuzzy logic will change that. facts are facts.
If you are basing your statement that the RF 24-105 is optically not better than the EF Mk II primarily on the MTF curves - and while I do understand why you might tend to put a lot of weight on the MTF curves - I think it's worth remembering the MTF curves use theoretical calculations (I think only Zeiss publishes measured MTFs?). I'm not sure how likely it is really, but perhaps the RF 24-105 gets closer to its theoretical values than the EF versions? Or perhaps the real point is just that in practical terms, the EF and RF lenses are good enough to take good photos when used well.
 

4fun

picture? perfect!
Nov 19, 2018
181
53
#63
In reality all versions of Canon 24-105 are "ok", but none is "stellar". RF version is not better IQ-wise than EF L. Adding a control ring does not justify a significantly higher sales price as far as i am concerned.

Personally i don't care much for the control ring. to me it is yet another control element duplicated on every lens. i consider Nikon Z approach as much smarter, where focus ring on lens can be assigned as control ring. To me a better design for AF lenses, where manual focus is rarely needed, if ever.

best solution for me would be a multi-function ring on camera around lens mount, that can also be assigned as manual focus ring, when really needed. saving dedicated mono-functional focus rings on each lens.
 
Oct 26, 2013
1,083
300
#64
Have actually used the Rf 24-105mm. Best lens I have ever used. I can't imagine anyone who thinks this lens is just "OK". That definition is jut the usual internet BS by folks with an agenda.
 
Likes: Del Paso

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,521
633
Canada
#66
Happy for you. But mainly dependent on which lenses/cameras you have used before. Very subjective BS. MTF curves are objective. :)
MTF curves do not show IS performance, nor do they indicate how well the AF of the lens is on the R body. Nor do they show the personal preferences of the user. If he is talking about a general purpose walk-about lens, I can understand the claim "best lens I have ever used". Beats the heck out of a big white to carry.

That said, a more accurate claim would be "best lens/body combo I have ever carried".
 

4fun

picture? perfect!
Nov 19, 2018
181
53
#67
MTF curves do not show IS performance, nor do they indicate how well the AF of the lens is on the R body. Nor do they show the personal preferences of the user. If he is talking about a general purpose walk-about lens, I can understand the claim "best lens I have ever used". Beats the heck out of a big white to carry.

That said, a more accurate claim would be "best lens/body combo I have ever carried".
yes. but up to now we have only discussed "IQ". so your first 2 points do apply (IS, AF performance) and are indeed not covered in Canon's MTF curves (calculated for optical lens design, not measured). good point!

personally i of course prefer mirrorfree R with native RF lens over EF glass.

But i do not expect noticeably better IQ in case of 24-105 in real life (even with IS and AF coming into play). Definitely none, that would justify price differential.

Things may/will change as soon as "white box" RF 24-105s will be sold at more reasonable prices. just like all the white box EF 24-105s flooded the market. for RF it may take a bit longer, since it currently is the only native RF zoom option = many R buyers will buy the kit (even more so when offered at a decent price advantage compared to separate items) and keep the lens for the time being. When the RF 2.8 zooms are available, a batch of second-hand RF 24-105s will hit the market, triggering lower prices / promotions, cash-backs etc. also for new units.

also, when RF 24-70/4 comes, it will take some market share from 24-105, especially if it is optically (even) better (as with the EF versions), has "close- up/macro" ability, is noticably smaller/lighter and less expensive. :)

overall: unless you are a "compulsive GAS-ridden early adopter", don't rush (R/RF) purchase. best to wait some more & shoot with what we got. this time next year we will know a lot more. :)
 
Last edited:
May 11, 2017
856
95
#68
yes. but up to now we have only discussed "IQ". so your first 2 points do apply (IS, AF performance) and are indeed not covered in Canon's MTF curves (calculated for optical lens design, not measured). good point!

personally i of course prefer mirrorfree R with native RF lens over EF glass.

But i do not expect noticeably better IQ in case of 24-105 in real life (even with IS and AF coming into play). Definitely none, that would justify price differential.

Things may/will change as soon as "white box" RF 24-105s will be sold at more reasonable prices. just like all the white box EF 24-105s flooded the market. for RF it may take a bit longer, since it currently is the only native RF zoom option = many R buyers will buy the kit (even more so when offered at a decent price advantage compared to separate items) and keep the lens for the time being. When the RF 2.8 zooms are available, a batch of second-hand RF 24-105s will hit the market, triggering lower prices / promotions, cash-backs etc. also for new units.

also, when RF 24-70/4 comes, it will take some market share from 24-105, especially if it is optically (even) better (as with the EF versions), has "close- up/macro" ability, is noticably smaller/lighter and less expensive. :)

overall: unless you are a "compulsive GAS-ridden early adopter", don't rush (R/RF) purchase. best to wait some more & shoot with what we got. this time next year we will know a lot more. :)
The current Canon Watch price for the EF 24-105 II is over 96% of Canon's price. Some people are willing to wait longer than others. At some point compulsive GAS-ridden early adoption becomes a reasonable choice to buy now rather than waiting for the price drop.
 

4fun

picture? perfect!
Nov 19, 2018
181
53
#69
especially for EF lenses a bit more waiting might pay off really handsomely. :)
 
Last edited:
May 11, 2017
856
95
#70
especially for EF lenses a bit more waiting might pay of really handsomely. :)
True enough. You never know how prices will play out, but standing pat is usually the low cost option. On the other hand, you can't use equipment you haven't bought, although I guess you can always rent.
 
May 11, 2017
856
95
#72
for second-hand and new EF lenses future price development is pretty much obvious. :)
Sure. If you wait a year, you might well save money on an EF lens. How much you might save seems uncertain, at least to me. In the mean time you don't have the use of a lens that you would like to have.
 
Oct 26, 2013
1,083
300
#73
MTF curves do not show IS performance, nor do they indicate how well the AF of the lens is on the R body. Nor do they show the personal preferences of the user. If he is talking about a general purpose walk-about lens, I can understand the claim "best lens I have ever used". Beats the heck out of a big white to carry.

That said, a more accurate claim would be "best lens/body combo I have ever carried".
Yes, best lens/body combo. Have owned the original EF 24-105mm L and also the non-L 24-105mm. I would consider both of them to be "very good" lenses. I no longer have the L version, but could compare the new RF 24-105mm with the non-L 24-105mm on the "R'. The RF version was noticeably better. Also noticed the color was richer in the new RF. Don't know if color is part of the MTF chart. If not, then the MFT chart is only part of the story. And looking at the MTF charts, it should be obvious to any open minded person, that the charts show a very high quality lens.
 
Sep 4, 2014
32
0
#75
I love it, it feels like ever post about a new lens for the R mount. Someone complains about it not coming for the EF mount or EF mount is dead. There isn't many holes in the EF line up (expect for a 50mm f1.4). They are making new revision of EF lenses with a different white paint. I don't want 24-70 m3 with a new blacker paint. ha ha. Granted Canon could put out more lenses for the EF line up and I would be happy but I am pretty happy with there coverage from 11mm - 800mm.
Not arguing with your point, but are the RF lenses actually better? Would they work just as well on a different mount?

Maybe they have the same error in light refraction as any other Canon lens. But with the shorter distance from lens rear element to the sensor (i.e. where the mirror would be) that error doesn't have time to spread over as much of the sensor and so results in a better image?

Maybe the real reason for ML is inherently better IQ at the same price point.
 
Mar 2, 2012
2,716
189
#77
Sure. If you wait a year, you might well save money on an EF lens. How much you might save seems uncertain, at least to me. In the mean time you don't have the use of a lens that you would like to have.
Bingo. The wait and see game is silly if it prevents you from some activity you want to undertake.

I’d love for the prophoto d2s to be 50% cheaper, but in 10 years when they are I expect I’d look back and say “I wish I had a decade’s worth of high speed flash photos.”
 
Mar 26, 2014
689
37
#78
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.
The EF 24-105mm f/4L mkII was expensive, esp compared the mkI, when it came out, to the point people speculated it was released just to raise the price & Canon's profit. Difference at Amazon is 25% at the moment, $1099 compared to $875.

My guess is the RF version is here to eventually take the EF version's place - a cheap & convenient kit lens.

On the 5D I settled comfortable on the f/2.8L trio of zooms. I'll consider switching to EOS R when it has a similar trio of RF lenses.