A look at the Canon RF 24-105 F2.8L IS USM Z MTF

[Canon Rumors Guy]

The Canon RF 24-105 F2.8L jumped into the limelight with the latest announcement. This lens may not be for you. It’s big, it’s heavy, and pricey and Canon really wants this lens primarily for the cinema cameras. From all reports it’s not fully parfocal (which means the focus will change as you zoom), but it’s

See full article...

 

[csibra]

Why compare it with a much cheaper lens? Let's compare with the RF 24-70 f2,8 L IS USM at 24-70 range.

 

[Maximilian]

We have to bear in mind that with these MTFs we are comparing the lens wide open, but we can see that the new RF 24-105 F2.8L IS USM Z holds its own showing better contrast (black lines) throughout the zoom range, resolves more (blue lines) in the corners at 24mm and also at 105mm. While the lens is expensive, big and heavy, it matches expectations of being better than the proceeding Canon RF 24-105 F4.0L.

As I said in the other thread:
"Give me an RF 24-105/4 II with that MTFs at f/4 or f/5.6, and I'm in."

This one is to big and heavy for me, but I am happy for those wanting it.

 

[Maximilian]

Why compare it with a much cheaper lens? Let's compare with the RF 24-70 f2,8 L IS USM at 24-70 range.

Because it is exactly the same, highly versatile focal range.
And a lot of people say: how much more IQ do I get when spending so much more money.

Of course, you are right, that staying in the f/2.8 line-up, the 24-70 could be another comparison partner, too.

 

[Del Paso]

Still hoping for MTFs at 35 & 50mm (preferably at f5,6).
Or even better: Gordon's diagonal Brighton Pier views...

 

[[email protected]]

Because it is exactly the same, highly versatile focal range.
And a lot of people say: how much more IQ do I get when spending so much more money.

Of course, you are right, that staying in the f/2.8 line-up, the 24-70 could be another comparison partner, too.

Richard, another fantastic summary. Maximilian, I'm exactly that guy comparing it to my 28-70 f/2 and wondering which I'd like more. All the camera companies have long given photographers the devil's bargain of using a 24-105 that had "junior varsity" optics versus a "pro" 24-70. This one is interesting because the optics are much better.

Now, I find myself again in a similar position. I have the very nice 28-70 f/2 (and it's already pretty chonky), so would moving to the 24-105 f/2.8 make me happier for the greater range in exchange for the loss of a stop?

Pros:
0) Range is often limited at the long end with the 28-70, I find, for the way I shoot, so the added range would definitely be exploited

Cons:
0) Would lose a stop of light
1) MTF charts show the 28-70 much better on contrast, and - particularly - much less astigmatism (distance between the blue solid and dotted lines)
2) I can fit the 28-70 in a single lens bay in my backpack, even though it's a chonkster, while the 24-105 would take up two, fitting sideways
3) $3k is an awful lot of money for an f/2.8 lens. I have a suspicion this will be one that sees sales more often than others in a year
4) I have the 135 f/1.8 and a nice, cheap 85 f/1.4, and this is a good excuse to use them paired with the 28-70
5) Missing the semi-macro feature that the old Canon 24-105s used to have. They were typically around a 0.5 magnification ratio, where this isn't as good (around .1 to .3 through the zoom range). Respectable at .3, but not as good.


... so I think I'll not sell the f/2 lens and get the new 24-105 f/2.8. But I might have if I was shooting the 24-105 f/4 previously instead. Also, I have the sense that if it wasn't a "Z" video-oriented-featured lens, then it would be 25 percent less in cost. Feel like I'm paying a lot for something I won't use.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Richard, another fantastic summary. Maximilian, I'm exactly that guy comparing it to my 28-70 f/2 and wondering which I'd like more. All the camera companies have long given photographers the devil's bargain of using a 24-105 that had "junior varsity" optics versus a "pro" 24-70. This one is interesting because the optics are much better.

Now, I find myself again in a similar position. I have the very nice 28-70 f/2 (and it's already pretty chonky), so would moving to the 24-105 f/2.8 make me happier for the greater range in exchange for the loss of a stop?

Pros:
0) Range is often limited at the long end with the 28-70, I find, for the way I shoot, so the added range would definitely be exploited

Cons:
0) Would lose a stop of light
1) MTF charts show the 28-70 much better on contrast, and - particularly - much less astigmatism (distance between the blue solid and dotted lines)
2) I can fit the 28-70 in a single lens bay in my backpack, even though it's a chonkster, while the 24-105 would take up two, fitting sideways
3) $3k is an awful lot of money for an f/2.8 lens. I have a suspicion this will be one that sees sales more often than others in a year
4) I have the 135 f/1.8 and a nice, cheap 85 f/1.4, and this is a good excuse to use them paired with the 28-70
5) Missing the semi-macro feature that the old Canon 24-105s used to have. They were typically around a 0.5 magnification ratio, where this isn't as good (around .1 to .3 through the zoom range). Respectable at .3, but not as good.


... so I think I'll not sell the f/2 lens and get the new 24-105 f/2.8. But I might have if I was shooting the 24-105 f/4 previously instead. Also, I have the sense that if it wasn't a "Z" video-oriented-featured lens, then it would be 25 percent less in cost. Feel like I'm paying a lot for something I won't use.

I'm looking forward to getting the 24-105 f/2.8 in my hands and comparing it to the 28-70 which I own. I have a feeling they'll feel completely different in hand.

 

[Del Paso]

Richard, another fantastic summary. Maximilian, I'm exactly that guy comparing it to my 28-70 f/2 and wondering which I'd like more. All the camera companies have long given photographers the devil's bargain of using a 24-105 that had "junior varsity" optics versus a "pro" 24-70. This one is interesting because the optics are much better.

Now, I find myself again in a similar position. I have the very nice 28-70 f/2 (and it's already pretty chonky), so would moving to the 24-105 f/2.8 make me happier for the greater range in exchange for the loss of a stop?

Pros:
0) Range is often limited at the long end with the 28-70, I find, for the way I shoot, so the added range would definitely be exploited

Cons:
0) Would lose a stop of light
1) MTF charts show the 28-70 much better on contrast, and - particularly - much less astigmatism (distance between the blue solid and dotted lines)
2) I can fit the 28-70 in a single lens bay in my backpack, even though it's a chonkster, while the 24-105 would take up two, fitting sideways
3) $3k is an awful lot of money for an f/2.8 lens. I have a suspicion this will be one that sees sales more often than others in a year
4) I have the 135 f/1.8 and a nice, cheap 85 f/1.4, and this is a good excuse to use them paired with the 28-70
5) Missing the semi-macro feature that the old Canon 24-105s used to have. They were typically around a 0.5 magnification ratio, where this isn't as good (around .1 to .3 through the zoom range). Respectable at .3, but not as good.


... so I think I'll not sell the f/2 lens and get the new 24-105 f/2.8. But I might have if I was shooting the 24-105 f/4 previously instead. Also, I have the sense that if it wasn't a "Z" video-oriented-featured lens, then it would be 25 percent less in cost. Feel like I'm paying a lot for something I won't use.

My situation is quite simple.
I need a high optical quality lens for mountain hikes, lens changing is never safe or easy in these environments. That's why I bought the RF 24-105 f4. I was disappointed with it, and sold it. Replacing it with the excellent 28-70 f2? Not wide enough. Replacing it with the 24-70 f2,8? Not long enough.
If MTFs are as good at 35 and 50mm as they are at 24 and 105mm: a very easy choice! This is the lens I have been waiting for.
Its weight? I'm used to carrying 2 bodies and lenses from 18 to 400mm (yes, it sometimes hurts...). But the 24-105 f2,8 could easily replace 2-3 lenses.
Thank you, Canon!

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I'm exactly that guy comparing it to my 28-70 f/2 and wondering which I'd like more.

It is the same weight but longer so it should be better balanced.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

This is truly a hybrid lens.
Canon already has hybrid CNE lenses but those are more for cinema cameras.
Of course, Canon had the 1D C so we can argue that they were perfect for that camera.
They do not even work right on most Canon photo cameras.
These are arguably photo first.
I would say that they are perfect for the R5 C but it loses 3 stops of shake reduction.
It seems to me that it is best for mirrorless cameras performing cinema work.
I think it will live on my R3.

 

[mccasi]

I've compared my beloved 28-70 f2 with my 24-105 F4 at 105/cropped (also with the 100 macro and the 100-500) at 10m or so distance.
--> 28-70 is significantly sharper even cropped! and that's about ~105 F3.

however i full acknowledge that that's photo centric and for video cropping is partically comparable (APS-C mode).

So i'm more interested in the extra 4mm at the wide-end.

otherwise, form factor seems interesting choice as well:
- better without battery grip as its not extruding beyond the level of the body
- harder to fit in the backpack!
- (looks uglier)

 

[danfaz]

My situation is quite simple.
I need a high optical quality lens for mountain hikes, lens changing is never safe or easy in these environments.

I hike, too. Totally see myself with this new lens on my Cotton Carrier!

 

[mccasi]

I hike, too. Totally see myself with this new lens on my Cotton Carrier!

quite curious to see how it carries on a PD capture clip. broadly with the 28-70 without battery grip its not acceptable. and too heavy for the belt. my wife would not hike with me if i'd carry a cotton carrier

 

[stevoc921]

I hike, too. Totally see myself with this new lens on my Cotton Carrier!

Same. But also, this will be amazing for event photography, and honestly for just about anything I shoot. I have two bodies almost specifically because changing lenses is annoying, dangerous, and time consuming. This will eliminate the majority of times I need to actively carry two bodies with me on my shoots.

 

[amorse]

Honestly, the use case where this is most tempting to me is in shooting landscapes from small airplanes. The subject is almost always far enough away that you can shoot wide open and have everything in focus, and early morning low light plus the constant vibration from the plane means you need a fast lens and a fast shutter speed. My go to for years has been the 24-70 f/2.8, but I always wish I had just that little bit of extra reach as I've always found changing lenses in that space very cumbersome - once you've seen something that needs a longer focal length, it's almost always gone by the time you can switch lenses. This could be a good fit for that purpose.

 

[Del Paso]

quite curious to see how it carries on a PD capture clip. broadly with the 28-70 without battery grip its not acceptable. and too heavy for the belt. my wife would not hike with me if i'd carry a cotton carrier

Shouldn't be a problem at all!
When hiking in the Alps or elsewhere, I always have the 5 D IV + EF 100-400 L II on my Capture Peak clip. But always without battery grip.
The clip adapter plate is mounted on the body, not on the lens. Never had a single issue in 9 years...
PS: what is a cotton carrier? You don't mean a carrier bag, do you?

 

[koenkooi]

Shouldn't be a problem at all!
When hiking in the Alps or elsewhere, I always have the 5 D IV + EF 100-400 L II on my Capture Peak clip. But always without battery grip.
The clip adapter plate is mounted on the body, not on the lens. Never had a single issue in 9 years...
PS: what is a cotton carrier?

On your belt or backpack strap?

 

[YuengLinger]

I don't see any downsides to this lens other than price and wth should I do with my 24-70mm?

MFD is practically the same as the f/4 version. One lens to rule them...

 

[danfaz]

PS: what is a cotton carrier? You don't mean a carrier bag, do you?

 

[danfaz]

Same. But also, this will be amazing for event photography, and honestly for just about anything I shoot. I have two bodies almost specifically because changing lenses is annoying, dangerous, and time consuming. This will eliminate the majority of times I need to actively carry two bodies with me on my shoots.

Absolutely! I shoot events, too, and this will be fantastic for that!