A Little Bit of Info on the Canon RF 20-50mm f/4L IS USM PZ

[Kjsheldo]

Since it has internal zoom, then I would guess the size would be close to 24-105 f4 collapsed, but I’m hoping it is closer to size and weight of the 14-35mm - that seems way more likely and would sell a lot better if so. So hoping for no more than 600 grams. If it’s closer to 750-800, it becomes less desirable.

Also guessing $1299-1499, but hope they have an R6V kit that knocks off $200-300.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Let me see if I got this right in comparison to the 24-105mm F4:
- same size
- similar weight
- same max aperture
- both lenses have IS
- 2,5 zoom instead of 4,3 zoom
- similar price tag

Wow, from a stills photographer standpoint this lens isn’t interesting at all!

But then again, it does start at 20mm

Seriously, I am definitely out on this one

 

[mimbu]

Yes, it's an internal zoom.

So it's a lens for video shooters designed for gimbal use (PZ, internal zoom), but it starts at 20mm and is really big (24-105/4L size)...?

What is Canon thinking??

For a lot of gimbal use 20mm isn't really wide enough and the 24-105/4L is huge. This seems like an odd lens. I can only assume that Canon knows something I don't. (Or maybe Canon is still clueless about the needs of run&gun video? That's certainly possible.)

 

[neuroanatomist]

...if Canon isn't doing any of their computational tricks, which I hope won't be the case.

That would be a surprise. Certainly other hybrid-use lenses do so, including the RF 24-105/2.8L Z.

Since it has internal zoom, then I would guess the size would be close to 24-105 f4 collapsed, but I’m hoping it is closer to size and weight of the 14-35mm

The 24-105/4L is only ~7 mm longer than the 14-35/4L, that doesn't bother me as either is fine to use on an R8 (in my use cases for that camera). Like you, I hope that the 20-50/4L is closer to the weight of the UWA zoom than the standard zoom, and I suspect that will be the case.

I guess we'll know in 10 days.

 

[Billybob]

Intriguing lens. I automatically think of the Sony 20-70mm lens, which was $1100 on release. The Sony is a G lens rather than GM, which roughly corresponds to Canon's L, which means that Canon will undoubtedly have superior IQ, albeit with a shorter focal range. Nonetheless, the Sony gets favorable IQ reviews. I picked it up to shoot with my Sony A7rIV (60MP) as a compact standard-zoom range. The IQ was okay, but the 20-24mm additional range was less compelling to me than I thought. I ended up picking up the 24-70mm GM lens, which--though bigger-- is not that big and has much better IQ for my taste. When I need to go wide--or ultra wide--the Canon 14-35mm does the job much better for me, and I hope no problem carrying two lenses (and two bodies ). I started this post by calling this lens intriguing--which I'm sure it is for some--but not for me.

 

[Del Paso]

So it's a lens for video shooters designed for gimbal use (PZ, internal zoom), but it starts at 20mm and is really big (24-105/4L size)...?

What is Canon thinking??

For a lot of gimbal use 20mm isn't really wide enough and the 24-105/4L is huge. This seems like an odd lens. I can only assume that Canon knows something I don't. (Or maybe Canon is still clueless about the needs of run&gun video? That's certainly possible.)

They should hire you as the universal genius!

 

[mimbu]

Intriguing lens. I automatically think of the Sony 20-70mm lens, which was $1100 on release. The Sony is a G lens rather than GM, which roughly corresponds to Canon's L, which means that Canon will undoubtedly have superior IQ, albeit with a shorter focal range. Nonetheless, the Sony gets favorable IQ reviews. I picked it up to shoot with my Sony A7rIV (60MP) as a compact standard-zoom range. The IQ was okay, but the 20-24mm additional range was less compelling to me than I thought. I ended up picking up the 24-70mm GM lens, which--though bigger-- is not that big and has much better IQ for my taste. When I need to go wide--or ultra wide--the Canon 14-35mm does the job much better for me, and I hope no problem carrying two lenses (and two bodies ). I started this post by calling this lens intriguing--which I'm sure it is for some--but not for me.

Being PZ, it's more like Sony's 16-35/4G PZ which sells for $1300 today. Excellent lens. But it sounds like the Canon is going to be a whole lot bigger and heavier which makes it pretty gimbal-unfriendly. I guess we'll see on release.

 

[mimbu]

They should hire you as the universal genius!

They could do to learn from the best when it comes to run&gun video setups, and that would be Sony. That's not to say Sony is the best at everything, but they are the best at this.

Edit: Laugh all you want, Sony owned the run&gun market with the FX3 and ZV-E1 for years. Before that with the A7S and A7SII. Finally Canon releases the C50 (with a yesteryear FSI sensor) and Sony is coming back with a fully stacked FX3 II monster that's due this summer.

 

[john1970]

This lens fills a nice gap if one already has the 10-20 mm f4 and 70-200 mm f4 lenses. Great trio for landscapes and relatively compact for all three lenses.

 

[Ian K]

I thought the Z was f/2.8?

That’s true.

 

[mangobutter]

It most definitely is. It's going to depend on the stretch I think. I don't care about the stretch, but lots of others do. This would crush on the R8 for the walkaround when I want AF... but only if the zoom ring feels normal.

I'd love a 20-50F4, it's the lens i've always dreamed of. For me it represents my most used focal lengths. I don't care to go wider than 20 like I did in my younger years and 50 is the sweet spot for zoomed in -- one of the reasons I still use, own, and shoot a 17-40L on Canon to this day. From 20-40, it's good wide open, and actually quite great stopped down. I imagine this 20-50 F4 being an L would look as good wide open (hopefully better) than the 17-40 does stopped down. However I'm certain it'll come at a price. My guess.. $1,599 introduction.

and to parrot what you said about the zoom.. yeah i like my zooms to be mechanical

 

[scyrene]

I'd love a 20-50F4, it's the lens i've always dreamed of. For me it represents my most used focal lengths. I don't care to go wider than 20 like I did in my younger years and 50 is the sweet spot for zoomed in -- one of the reasons I still use, own, and shoot a 17-40L on Canon to this day. From 20-40, it's good wide open, and actually quite great stopped down. I imagine this 20-50 F4 being an L would look as good wide open (hopefully better) than the 17-40 does stopped down. However I'm certain it'll come at a price. My guess.. $1,599 introduction.

and to parrot what you said about the zoom.. yeah i like my zooms to be mechanical

I'm genuinely interested to know, what sort of shots would you use this for? I'm not very good with shorter focal lengths so it's a bit mystifying.

 

[mangobutter]

That would be a surprise. Certainly other hybrid-use lenses do so, including the RF 24-105/2.8L Z.


The 24-105/4L is only ~7 mm longer than the 14-35/4L, that doesn't bother me as either is fine to use on an R8 (in my use cases for that camera). Like you, I hope that the 20-50/4L is closer to the weight of the UWA zoom than the standard zoom, and I suspect that will be the case.

I guess we'll know in 10 days.

they'll 100% do computational tricks. for a zoom that goes to 20mm, that's how you'd keep it compact. the fact that this zoom does NOT go to 70mm, tells me that there's an emphasis here on Canon's part to keep the size as compact as possible.

 

[mangobutter]

I'm genuinely interested to know, what sort of shots would you use this for? I'm not very good with shorter focal lengths so it's a bit mystifying.

all purpose landscape, architecture. basically anywhere i'd use my 16-35, 17-40 etc but with more of an emphasis on a useful range i'd actually use. everyone's use is different though. i use to shoot a lot of UWA but i just can't anymore. when i look at my LR, i find myself often zooming in a bit to get to 20, 21mm or 24mm (if i'm doing ultra wide) then you have 50mm which is pretty standard, portraits, detail shots, object shots etc.

 

[esspy2]

Size being similar to the 24-105mm f4L is a turn off but the weather sealing and IS are very appreciated. Now what remains to be seen is balance on an R8. Size wise I was hoping for a 14-35mm f4 size or even the RF 15-30mm size. Weight wise I can hope will not be along the lines of the 24-105mm f4L.

 

[Del Paso]

Size being similar to the 24-105mm f4L is a turn off but the weather sealing and IS are very appreciated. Now what remains to be seen is balance on an R8. Size wise I was hoping for a 14-35mm f4 size or even the RF 15-30mm size. Weight wise I can hope will not be along the lines of the 24-105mm f4L.

But you certainly know, despite software correction possibilities, that a too small lens can often mean IQ compromises.
You rarely get the butter and the money for the butter, I won't even mention the milkmaid...
Oops, I did.

 

[ashmadux]

"..ff Canon isn't doing any of their computational tricks, which I hope won't be the case."

Dare to dream.

Personally I'm still baffled at the focal length. At f4. On FF. If this was a crop lens, then i could see it as a walkaround.

But FF? (confused emoji)

 

[davidespinosa]

(1) Canon may eventually update the 24-105 f/4L.
In case someone has intelligent commentary -- I don't !

(2) The 24-105 f/4L has external zoom (image courtesy of Ken Rockwell):

 

[clearwaterphotog]

Pretty bummed this is f/4. I've been hoping for a 2.8 lens like this, though ideally starting at 18mm instead. I'd be willing to accept size and cost close to the 15-35. If Sony can make a 20-70/4, so can Canon. I have a hard time believing there's a larger market for gimbal users who want an internal zooming lens in this focal range and size/weight, compared to users who want a travel friendly lens that goes wider than 24mm. That Sony lens has been a real hit. But whatever, Canon does what Canon wants.

Guess I'll just wait for them to update the 24-105/4... which I suspect we'll be waiting several more years for, sadly. I hope I'm wrong.