Is a Canon RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS on the way? [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

Canon has a bunch of lenses that will be announced in 2023, the most obvious desires of shooters is fast wide angle L prime lenses. We’ve talked ad nauseam about those, so until we have something definitive, you know what we know. Now for the second time, we have an anonymous report that Canon plans

See full article...

 

[Maximilian]

I really like the FL zoom range. And f/2.8 would be really impressing and great.
But I fear the size and weight.
And the price would make it even less attractive.
I think it's okay to leave this at [CR1] or even lower as long as we don't have a dedicated patent.

 

[sanj]

If there is a place to make bets, I am willing to bet that this will NEVER happen.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

If it really is a RF 24-105 f/2.8 L IS, it would have to cost a lot more than the RF 24-70 f/2.8 L IS in order not to cannibalize that lens. So it would probably another lens over $3,000, which only works on Canon's RF mount. Not sure for whom that would be a good deal. Travel or wedding photographers would love the range, but hate the weight. Portrait photographers would rather buy a prime or the 28-70 f/2, for sports and wildlife photographers it will still be too short.

On the other side the RF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS is not too heavy either. It all depends on if they find a clever new optical formula that allows the lens to be lighter.

 

[R5boy]

This the lens that would have make me convert to Canon.
But instead I switched anyway and took the 28-70 f2.

So there's definitely a market for it.

Once they're at it, they should do the Tamron way, f/2-2.8

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It is only a CR1 but I hate having to choose between f/2.8 and the ability to zoom out to 105 mm.
I would welcome such a lens.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Sounds unlikely to be honest. I'd wish Canon would go the Tamron way and bring out different (or slightly different) focal lengths. For the "holy trinity" I guess a 24-80mm and a 80-240mm (or 35-105mm and 100-300mm) would have been more than welcome.
If they opt for a heavy, expensive unicorn lens, please let it be a F2 zoom starting at 70mm.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Personally, I'm quite happy with the combination of the 28-70/2 when I need a wide aperture and the 24-105/4 when I want something smaller/lighter as a standard zoom.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If they opt for a heavy, expensive unicorn lens, please let it be a F2 zoom starting at 70mm.

I would not say no to a 70-135/2 to pair with my 28-70/2.

 

[Sporgon]

I would imagine Canon sell as many 24 to something and 70 to something L lenses as all their other L lenses put together, so I can see them having mileage in fleshing out those ranges just like they did with the EF range. However, as @Maximilian says, it will be very big, heavy and expensive, but there are plenty of people who will see their images as being much better from a £4000 lens
I remember here on CR the ridicule and derision when the EF 24-70 f/4 IS was introduced, but that lens does offer a smaller, lighter and better balanced package than its contemporaries, with very good resolution across the frame at f/8 or 11, (and 5.6 at shorter focal lengths) matching all but the most expensive primes, and so a good all weather landscape lens.

 

[Sporgon]

I would not say no to a 70-135/2 to pair with my 28-70/2.

And some dumbbells for training ?

 

[neuroanatomist]

And some dumbbells for training ?

Carrying around my three kids is probably why I can handhold my 600/4 II. And they turned out to be smartbells.

 

[Del Paso]

THE lens I've been dreaming of.
(Please Canon, make it macro...)

 

[koenkooi]

[...] I remember here on CR the ridicule and derision when the EF 24-70 f/4 IS was introduced, but that lens does offer a smaller, lighter and better balanced package than its contemporaries,[...]

With my desire for having a smaller-than-r5 travel body, a RF24-70 F/4L IS USM would be a great lens, especially if they trade size for software corrections. I've been looking through my travel pictures to see what kind of focal range would be useful for future trip and apart from dragonflies and birds at 500mm, the overwhelming part of the shots were at a (FF equiv) between 24 and 72mm.

That makes the new RF24-50 STM lens especially interesting to me for it's price, when you buy it as a kit with the R8. A 24-70 F/4L being 28.6% cheaper than the current 24-105 F/4L would be a very interesting lens, for me, as an upgrade to the 24-50.

 

[shadowsports]

FL is already covered at f2.8L. No need for this lens. WA primes and super telephotos please.

 

[bbasiaga]

They say its hard to make a 24-105 F4 good at both ends. Makes me wonder what Canon could have figured out on a 2.8. It'll be a $3k lens if i happens, so not something I'm interested in. I love the F4 though - my favorites lens for sure. I was hoping we'd see a 24-70 f/4. The RF could be very small and would make a nice buddy to the 24-105 for certain things.

But I guess we'll see.

-Brian

 

[DBounce]

Sounds fantastic, and if I didn’t already own both the 24-70mm F2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 this would be a no brainer… but as I own both, it makes little sense to splurge on yet another lens.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Another aspect of these 24 to …. lenses is that even with an f/4 you can achieve the same shallow dof at 70mm as you can get with a 50/1.8 lens, framing for framing, and so they really are very versatile.

50mm at f/1.8 has about half the depth of field of 70mm at f/4, for the same composition, 70mm will require you to stand back.


I'd love to see a 24-105mm f/2.8 becoming a reality. I'd imagine such a lens weighting 1.1 to 1.4Kg, with a price similar to that of the 28-70 f/2.

 

[PinholeR5]

It is only a CR1 but I hate having to choose between f/2.8 and the ability to zoom out to 105 mm.
I would welcome such a lens.

I agree with that sentiment. I used to have that dilemma all the time with the EF versions.

 

[Kit.]

If it really is a RF 24-105 f/2.8 L IS, it would have to cost a lot more than the RF 24-70 f/2.8 L IS in order not to cannibalize that lens.

No need to use the C-word. It would have to cost a lot more just because it would be at least twice as much glass.