Canon RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z to be announced this week

Nikon disagrees. They even use fluorite elements in their 70-200/2.8, 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses and those are black. That's especially ironic since in their description of ED glass they state, "Calcium fluorite crystals were once used to correct this problem in telephoto lenses, but the substance cracked easily and was sensitive to temperature changes. So Nikon created ED glass, which offers all the benefits, but none of the drawbacks of calcium fluorite-based glass."
All Nikon's lenses are black though.....It's the matter of gold ring.
Upvote 0
I don't really see the point of f/2.8 trinity any more.

1) We don't need it for viewfinder brightness.

2) We don't need it for autofocus.

3) We don't need it to avoid grain/noise or to freeze motion on moving subjects. (Current sensors are fantastically low-noise at high ISO.)

4) We don't need it to shoot still subjects that would otherwise require a tripod (50/1.8 on R5 shoots about as well at 1/2 sec as at any speed above 1/30)

5) We don't need it to make subjects pop from backgrounds. (It used to be that focus was never great, lenses weren't so high resolution, film was grainy, exposures were blurred by camera shake, and so even the SUBJECT was pretty blurry. Because of those factors, we didn't use images in big sizes. In order to make the background visibly yet blurrier at this low print size, f/2.8 sometimes helped to make the subject stand out. But now, we prepare every shot even for our personal social media to be 15" (38cm) wide. The sensors are practically noiseless. The AF is utterly nailed to the subject eyes. Lenses can do 50lp/mm or better at very high contrast. Sensors are noise-free up to ISO 4000+. IBIS saves us with camera shake. The subject is absolutely clear as a bell and even f/4 (wider shots) or 72mm aperture (tele) gives us more pop at these large image sizes than we ever got at f/2.8 in the old days.

I wish the folks using Sony/Nikon with 3rd parties can be sensible as you. They attack RF all the time saying f4+IS are inferior to their f2.8 trinities.
Upvote 0
Jan 11, 2016
Close, but possibly no cigar, (unless it has much better optics than the 24-104 f/4). Now, if it was an RF 24-240 2.8 "L" I'd buy two of them, and ditch my iPhone for walking around, day trips, and vacay / sightseeing (with the occasional Shutterstock worthy photo in the mix). :cry:

That would be probably 10 pounds and $20k :p
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
And a relief - the Z just means compatible with the new PZ-E2 Power Zoom adapters (two versions). Nothing in the lens itself (except contacts on the barrel).

Oh, and it has an aperture ring!!!!

Screenshot 2023-11-02 at 12.12.26 AM.png

I suppose the focus ring has a different texture (bigger ribbing) because of the, "Focus Ring with Tactile Feedback."
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0