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

[Act444]

I love my 28-70mm but I am seriously tempted. 70mm has always felt too short for headshots and portraits, hitting 105mm replaces a standalone 85mm or 100mm and reduces the need to switch to a 70-200mm. With a high megapixel sensor you might be able to get away with just cropping in for telephoto shots, clients won't even be able to tell haha. And 24mm makes all the difference in smaller rooms.

Don't do much portraiture but when I do, I agree, I'm not crazy about the 70mm 2.8 perspective. While it's fine for environmental/body shots, it's not really long enough for tight headshots, and not always possible to get the full face in focus at close-up (headshot) distances using 2.8. At 100mm 2.8 though I had neither of these issues (with the 100 macro). Loved using the 100 Macro for this purpose, but a major drawback is I needed considerable working distance to get 1/2 and 3/4 body shots, something that isn't always available. A 24-105 2.8 would solve that issue...

I got the original EF 24-105 as the kit lens with my 5D3 in 2012 and while it has never blown me away, whenever I restricted myself to using it (to save space/changing lenses) it always outperformed my expectations. I still have it and it works even better with the R6 because it gains a bit of extra IS. I'm sure this new one will be amazing, though I doubt I'll ever own one.

I kept mine as well. I found it paired really well with the 5D3 and I actually liked it for a while. But, once I upgraded to the 5D4, I soured fairly quickly on it. Maybe 20-22MP is the best it can do resolution-wise, and on higher MP cameras its flaws are exposed that much more...

In fact, even though I picked up the RF version recently, I still have the EF version...I've used it adapted to the R and oddly enough it's probably a bit better on that than it was on the 5D4, although still not as good as it was on the 5D3. Even the native RF version doesn't resolve quite as much on the 30MP R as I'd ideally like (mostly at 105mm), but it DOES have better contrast than the EF version (when I compared them directly).

 

[Del Paso]

So the issue is changing lenses on the Leica gear, due to lack of sensor cleaning? I can see your point.
Could you carry Canon body with a 14 or 15 to 35 mm zoom, plus a 70-200, and fill the gap with your Leica 50 mm?
Or, R-mount ultrawide, plus your 100-400, and again fill the 35-100 mm gap with your Leica gear?
This could lighten your load and reduce lens swaps.

Not only due to lack of sensor cleaning, often rather due to topography and wind...
I have a few WA zooms (all Canon). And L ones. But Leica primes are simply a class above. And Canon L primes, though optically often equal in quality (RF 50, EF 1,4/35, 1,4/85), are simply far too large and heavy.
My plan is Leica M 18+35, Leica R 60 macro, RF 24-105 f2,8 and 100-400 plus, since I dislike "converging" mountains, TSE 24.
6 lenses instead of 9, and, where lens changing could be risky, I could rely on the 24-105 for most shots.
Anyway, thank you for your suggestions I could have retained, if only I hadn't been spoiled by those dam...d Summiluxes...

 

[Del Paso]

On your belt or backpack strap?

One Capture Peak clip per backpack strap, on the left one the EOS + 100-400 L II, on the right side one the Leica M + 35mm.
I tried once the belt mounted clip, but didn't like it at all.
Peak Design was a blessing for me, formerly I had 2 similar cameras and lenses hanging from my aching neck...

 

[Docofthewild]

A typical setup around here is something like 15-35/2.8 or 14-35/24, plus a 70-200. This leaves a gap between 35 and 70 mm which to most is no big deal, but potentially could be filled with a 50 mm prime.

This is my personal carry, 14-35 and 70-200 4 when traveling light and add the 50 1.2 +/- 600 11 if I’m not concerned about weight. Either way I rarely have a hard time filling the gaps with my feet.

- An aperture ring that works only in video; will work on photo, but with none of the already released bodies. So tech, development, barrel space, and material for a ring I can't use

I haven’t really seen any of the initial reviews of this lens yet, is there much information on how this ring will work? Will it be like the control ring where you can adjust the aperture but it is still in a stepped pattern in 1/3 or 1/2 stops based on in camera settings or will it be more like a manual lens where there is infinity adjustments? I don’t do much film work but I think the latter would provide a smoother slow fade out

 

[danfaz]

I love my 28-70mm but I am seriously tempted. 70mm has always felt too short for headshots and portraits, hitting 105mm replaces a standalone 85mm or 100mm and reduces the need to switch to a 70-200mm. With a high megapixel sensor you might be able to get away with just cropping in for telephoto shots, clients won't even be able to tell haha. And 24mm makes all the difference in smaller rooms.

I'm gonna have a shootout with these 2 when I get my 24-105.
The 28-70 is a sexy beast, but if the 24-105 ticks all the boxes, not sure I'll keep it.

 

[jdavidse]

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

I'm sure it will be no problem, especially if you are already carrying similar weight.

Have you tried the Spider Pro backpack kit? I find it way easier to drop the camera in and remove it than the PD Capture. It is very forgiving of which angle/orientation your camera is in when you drop it in, which means it never binds up if you got the camera slightly crooked as with the PD. Also, because the clip is vertical instead of horizontal, you can get an extra one and put it right on your belt. I always transfer the camera from the shoulder pad to my belt before taking my pack on or off.

 

[jdavidse]

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 have a few similar pros and cons on this lens. #2 is no small deal, as I was so excited to switch to the RF 70-200 back when it came out to solve this very issue of bag space with the EF 70-200. I think it is a very important thing in wedding photography especially to be able to have any lens I take off my camera to fill the same slot in the bag as the lens I just put on my camera.

For me, what would make this lens really worth it is to use it to shake up my entire lineup. Or conversely, keep my current lineup and not bother with it at all.

Right now I have 15-35, 24-70, 70-200, 50 f1.2 and 85 1.4. If I add the 24-105 to this mix, or replace the 24-70 with it, let's assume it is equal to the RF 24-70 in IQ. I am left with:
1. Extra reach and versatility in that one lens, reaching for the 70-200 less often. Fewer lens changes.
2. Bigger, heavier and longer lens in my most-used lens (and the lens I want on my camera at the end of a wedding day, precisely when I need a lighter and shorter lens)
3. All the challenges with storage in the bag as outlined above.

I just don't see this being worth it with this lineup. However, if I was in a whole different category of photography, say landscape photography or just doing simple 1-lens corporate events, this lens would be very appealing. For a wedding kit, I would say this lens would allow one to really shake up the lineup:

16mm 2.8 (for extra wide shots of venues)
50mm 1.2
24-105, covering most of the day.
135 1.8
R5.

The R5 would be important with the 135mm, as you could set the button on the side of the lens to switch between full frame and 1.6 crop mode, instantly turning the 135 into a 216mm @ 17megapixels. It would take the place of the 70-200 this way. This whole kit would fit in a small bag.

 

[John Wilde]

Canon has now released 8 lenses this year, right on pace with what they said their goal was.

 

[Richard CR]

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 the range makes it a difficult thing to compare against. it's always a bit unfair to compare a 3x to a 4x zoom even at these price ranges. the "sweet spot" for zooms has atypically been 3x, anything over that and managing the zoom range optical quality takes a bit of a hit. Also since a lot of people are familiar with the 24-105 F4L, then they can use that as a basis of comparison to how well they think they'd be happy with it's bigger brother.

but it's a fair comment, and I'll update the article today to include the 24-70 - but Canon doesn't provide the MTFs at 70mm for the 24-105 F2.8L

Edit: I added both the 28-70 and the 24-70 in the article. Now I'm going to have my morning coffee

 

[danfaz]

Thanks for the updated MTF comparison!
Looks like this lens will not disappoint.

 

[Walrus]

I haven’t really seen any of the initial reviews of this lens yet, is there much information on how this ring will work? Will it be like the control ring where you can adjust the aperture but it is still in a stepped pattern in 1/3 or 1/2 stops based on in camera settings or will it be more like a manual lens where there is infinity adjustments? I don’t do much film work but I think the latter would provide a smoother slow fade out

For what I've seen in a couple of video, infinite adjust, unclicked, and no way to let it be clickable. So good for video, but from a photo standpoint, you want click steps for aperture. There's an "A" (automatic) position, blocked by a release lock, that gives aperture control back to the camera (or the normal control ring on the lens).

Remember that on RF lenses the control ring (or any other dial) can be set to increase/decrease the aperture in 1/8 stops (only in video mode), instead of the std 1/2 or 1/3; I don't know if the new aperture ring on the 24-105 can be stepped in 1/8 increments, too. I guess it should, otherwise would be laughable to have a proper aperture ring, but needing to use the control ring or any other dial to have 1/8 stops control in video...

 

[angelisland]

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.

Did you read the article? It’s compared to several lenses.

 

[AJ]

Not only due to lack of sensor cleaning, often rather due to topography and wind...
I have a few WA zooms (all Canon). And L ones. But Leica primes are simply a class above. And Canon L primes, though optically often equal in quality (RF 50, EF 1,4/35, 1,4/85), are simply far too large and heavy.
My plan is Leica M 18+35, Leica R 60 macro, RF 24-105 f2,8 and 100-400 plus, since I dislike "converging" mountains, TSE 24.
6 lenses instead of 9, and, where lens changing could be risky, I could rely on the 24-105 for most shots.
Anyway, thank you for your suggestions I could have retained, if only I hadn't been spoiled by those dam...d Summiluxes...

Sounds like you enjoy shooting primes, including tilt-shift. Fair enough. Given that, I'm not sure if 24-105/2.8 would be your cuppa tea... One way to reduce lens swaps would be to carry more camera bodies.

 

[Del Paso]

Sounds like you enjoy shooting primes, including tilt-shift. Fair enough. Given that, I'm not sure if 24-105/2.8 would be your cuppa tea... One way to reduce lens swaps would be to carry more camera bodies.

Let's wait, even though I sure the 24-105 won't be as good as the best primes, I'm confident it will be a great lens nevertheless. And worth buying and using!
More than 2 bodies? Never, never, never again (I did it once when I was young and silly )
Since camera backpacks did not yet exist, at least in Europe, I turned my Lowepro Magnum into a usable backpack (I did it with a car safety-belt...). But , with 3 bodies and a handul of primes, including Leica's 560mm tele, it was a bit (!) on the heavy side. And 80 Kodachromes were in a pocket I had sewn underneath the bag. The airport safety officers (much friendlier than TSA ...) in Frankfurt and Los Angeles didn't even notice while performing manual check (didn't want them to get X rayed).

 

[bf]

This lens have such a looong name! If canon comes up with an excuse to have an A then I'd call it 24/105 A2Z.

My feelings for Z:
an indication of hybrid photo/video?
Costly photo, affordable "cine" lens?
Canon is praising Nikon's Z system unlike using Lieca letters for cheap stuff!

It's not for me! I just shared my (trolling) thoughts!

P. S. would it make a good street photography lens if:
People would not notice the camera hidden behind the body
and, hidden zoom action coming from fixed length body?
... nah!

 

[Del Paso]

This lens have such a looong name! If canon comes up with an excuse to have an A then I'd call it 24/105 A2Z.

My feelings for Z:
an indication of hybrid photo/video?
Costly photo, affordable "cine" lens?
Canon is praising Nikon's Z system unlike using Lieca letters for cheap stuff!

It's not for me! I just shared my (trolling) thoughts!

P. S. would it make a good street photography lens if:
People would not notice the camera hidden behind the body
and, hidden zoom action coming from fixed length body?
... nah!

What did you exactly intend with your post? To be funny? Missed.

 

[danfaz]

What did you exactly intend with your post? To be funny? Missed.

 

[DrD]

This is the lens for me. I have the 24-105 f/4 and I do studio fashion shoots with it, it\'s NOT a bad lens, but I can clearly see the difference when I use something like my 85mm f/1.2, and the 24-105 not allowing in enough light without having to compromise in ISO flash (and other factors). I\'ve been considering the 28-70 f/2, and while that one is great, it presented some challenges for me not being wide enough when needed and not being able to zoom in close enough when I need a detailed shot, plus it\'s too front heavy for me so when I\'m shooting for 4-6 hours it gave me issues, and I wasn\'t able to really have it on a tripod because I use the battery grip, it\'s front heavy and even with the best tripods I\'ve always had to adjust (or I could put it in a cage) to hold it where I needed it. The 24-105 solves most of the issues. I know some people will talk about the f/2 over the f/2.8, but honestly, that\'s just distance and subject distance for the most part, I can step in closer zoom to 105 at f/2.8 and have my subject step further away from the background (plus a stop of light, which I can overcome easier at f/2-f2.8, whereas f/4-f/2.8 is a different story), and when that doesn\'t work, that\'s why I have the f/1.2 primes, but for the most part, the 24-105 f/2.8 solves most of the issues for the way I shoot. So I\'m pretty sure when I receive mine, I\'ll be happy with it! otherwise I can always send it back and get the 28-70 f/2 and deal with switching lenses to the 85 and 100 mm macro lens.

Sounds like it is the perfect upgrade for fashion shooters. Plus the retaining focus whilst zooming in or out may be advantageous also.

 

[DhlcadR6]

I won't afford it for sure...but for pros that will buy it and phase out their RF24-70L....I hope the 2nd market will become cheaper for the 24-70L

 

[YuengLinger]

Looking at the specs, it's only two inches longer than the f/4 version, yet it weighs twice as much! Must be a lot of glass, tech, and love packed in there.