Canon officially announces the RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS STM

[pixel8foto]

On my last trip I took the EOS R, RF 24-105, and the EF 70-300 L with the adapter. It would have been great to have nearly that entire range in a single lens that’s about the same size as the RF 24-105.

+1
Compared to a 6D+24-105, an EOS-R+24-240 would be great, even if a tad less bright when you zoom.
As soon as Canon release a mirrorless 5D with proper knobs, buttons and IBIS, I'll buy that and one of these and then start looking at how it performs with the adaptor and EF lenses.

 

[danfaz]

EDIT:
Right after I posted this I found the information:
YouTube first look video by cameralabs reporting that it's f4 from 24-27mm, f5.6 @ 70mm, and f6.3 @ 109-240mm.

Ugh, I was hoping for f/4 at least up to 105mm, but only until 27mm?

 

[pixel8foto]

Tamron 28-300 Di VC ( full-frame ) is $699 retail. It's not a stunning lens, but it's entry-level.

Canon are on the record as saying that to them full-frame mirrorless is all about fat margins. There's your example.

I question the logic you've applied to reach this conclusion.

 

[degos]

I question the logic you've applied to reach this conclusion.

Go to Amazon.com right now and a sold-by-Amazon 6D and Tamron 28-300 together cost just under $1600, not $2200. That's the true level of full-frame entry-level superzoomage.

Or perhaps you want to splurge on a 6D II with the lens, that'll cost $1900. Still cheaper than this 'affordable' RP kit nonsense.

Canon want to position full-frame as a premium tier, rather than something affordable. Their entire strategy to date with RF reinforces that.

 

[justaCanonuser]

The kit is too expensive, for now. I expect to see this under 2000 by end of August. This is simply to get that early adopter bump and to make sales later look better.

I can imagine that we'll see cash back actions in near future including this kit. Here in Germany e.g. Canon runs an "EOS plus X" offer that already includes the EOS R.

 

[justaCanonuser]

In what world is $899 an entry level price?

Well, with Trump being president in the next turn I can imagine that 900 $ finally could make an entry level price - if you order from Europe

 

[Chaitanya]

I’d check myself into a mental health facility long before I’d pay $600 for a 50/1.8.

For a Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM(as stated in OP) $600 sounds like a steal if it does 1:1 mag ratio. Nikon is selling their 60mm f/2.8 macro without image stabilization for ~$600.

 

[koenkooi]

For a Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM(as stated in OP) $600 sounds like a steal if it does 1:1 mag ratio. Nikon is selling their 60mm f/2.8 macro without image stabilization for ~$600.

I bet such a lens will be 1:2 mag like the RF35 and EF50 f/2.5. I also think a 50mm counterpart to the RF35 will have a similar price, so $500.

 

[Hector1970]

It will really help sell RP cameras. It's just the sort of range a beginner would really want.
It would have been unimaginable years ago that you'd fork out $2000 on your first camera kit but there seems to be plenty of beginners for whom it is no issue.
I will be interested to see some real world tests on it.
I'd suspect it will be so-so quality wise - it would be nice if Canon surprised me with it. It's not a cheap lens. You'd hope it could well outperform the equivalent Tamron lens or EF-s 18-200mm zoom

 

[Pape]

Hmm it got quite big front lense . I hope its optimized very sharp for 240mm like macrozoom.

 

[ethanz]

If you actually watch the video with our pal Rudy, it shows many sample images. They look pretty good, even at 240.

 

[Architect1776]

Hmm it got quite big front lense . I hope its optimized very sharp for 240mm like macrozoom.

I just hope that Canon avoids any dog lenses in the RF line-up.
With computers and current technology there is no reason for any Canon lens to be a dog.
Yes it might not please pixel peepers (They never are pleased) but good decently sharp photos at 16X20 should not be difficult to do for any new Canon lens.

 

[lawny13]

Tamron 28-300 Di VC ( full-frame ) is $699 retail. It's not a stunning lens, but it's entry-level.

Canon are on the record as saying that to them full-frame mirrorless is all about fat margins. There's your example.

It’s not an OEM lens. Probably won’t work as well as the canon RF lenses on RF bodies. So tamron can’t exactly charge the same price. So your logic here is a little flawed.

Not to mention. When the 3rd party manufacturers start producing for RF mount people are free to choose them if they want to.

BTW most FF superzooms cost in this ball park or more.

 

[Trey T]

In what world is $899 an entry level price?

Vast majority of pro shoots w/ constant aperture zoom lenses to make their life easier, and the entry-level shooters (newbies) should too. You're right, it's not for entry-level ...

 

[unfocused]

If anyone doubts Canon's ability to produce a sharp lens at low cost, they need only pick up an EF-S 55-250 to know that Canon is very capable of doing both sharp and cheap.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Vast majority of pro shoots w/ constant aperture zoom lenses to make their life easier, and the entry-level shooters (newbies) should too. You're right, it's not for entry-level ...

I disagree. Most ‘entry level’ shooters use one of the many available auto-exposure modes, even if they move off the green box or scene modes, most will be in Av or Tv. Auto-exposure renders a constant-aperture zoom irrelevant, since the changing aperture will be compensated for by another side of the triangle. Heck, with many newer cameras there is auto ISO in M mode with available EC, so even for manual shooters the need for a constant aperture is pretty much nil.

IMO, the advantage of constant aperture zooms is not that the aperture is constant, but rather that the aperture is relatively faster than a corresponding variable aperture zoom. I shoot with a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 because they’re f/2.8, not f/5.6.

 

[AJ]

MTF curves here here: https://www.canonnews.com/canon-rf-24-240mm-f4-63-mtf

 

[takesome1]

I didn't realize that there was a rule against requesting stuff*, I'd like to see, in the future.
I'm sorry that this stuff* offended you! Different strokes for different folks, and all that stuff*.

Stuff* is a place holder for another word that starts with "S." Have a nice day

It sounds like someone is full of stuff*

 

[unfocused]

I disagree. Most ‘entry level’ shooters use one of the many available auto-exposure modes, even if they move off the green box or scene modes, most will be in Av or Tv. Auto-exposure renders a constant-aperture zoom irrelevant, since the changing aperture will be compensated for by another side of the triangle. Heck, with many newer cameras there is auto ISO in M mode with available EC, so even for manual shooters the need for a constant aperture is pretty much nil.

IMO, the advantage of constant aperture zooms is not that the aperture is constant, but rather that the aperture is relatively faster than a corresponding variable aperture zoom. I shoot with a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 because they’re f/2.8, not f/5.6.

I agree with your assessment. But, adding:

It's kind of silly to talk about any EOS R lens and body as "entry level." The cost of entry into full frame mirrorless by Canon is $2,000 with this lens. This may be "entry level" for the 1%, but for most consumers "entry level" is much more likely to remain an "M" or Rebel DSLR.

I believe most people buying this lens are likely to know exactly what they are getting.

 

[Don Haines]

MTF curves here here: https://www.canonnews.com/canon-rf-24-240mm-f4-63-mtf

Surprisingly good for a FF superzoom lens, particularly one that is not an L quality lens. I bet it sells very well