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

[stillviking]

It's beautiful but it's so huge I can't use on my daily basis!

 

[YuengLinger]

I love my daughter. She likes photography. I hand down my gear to her. This allows me to ludicrously justify buying f/2.8 versions of perfectly adequate f/4 lenses.

GAS logic.

 

[a.jiang]

I'm considering selling my RF 28-70 f/2.0 for the new 24-105 f/2.8 for two reasons.

• The widest focal length of 28mm is slightly limiting - 24mm makes a difference. 105 is longer than 70, which is a nice addition.
• I do feel that the f/2.0 doesn't make the biggest difference in terms of depth of field, especially at the wider end of the lens.

However, I do like the extra stop of light that f/2.0 gives under low-light situations.

Thoughts and suggestions? My use cases are very broad—events, sports, travel, everything.

 

[Del Paso]

I'm considering selling my RF 28-70 f/2.0 for the new 24-105 f/2.8 for two reasons.

• The widest focal length of 28mm is slightly limiting - 24mm makes a difference. 105 is longer than 70, which is a nice addition.
• I do feel that the f/2.0 doesn't make the biggest difference in terms of depth of field, especially at the wider end of the lens.

However, I do like the extra stop of light that f/2.0 gives under low-light situations.

Thoughts and suggestions? My use cases are very broad—events, sports, travel, everything.

I'd wait for some serious reviews, we still don't know if the RF 24-105 plays IQ wise in the same league as the 28-70.
Probable, but no certainty yet.

 

[danfaz]

I'm considering selling my RF 28-70 f/2.0 for the new 24-105 f/2.8 for two reasons.

• The widest focal length of 28mm is slightly limiting - 24mm makes a difference. 105 is longer than 70, which is a nice addition.
• I do feel that the f/2.0 doesn't make the biggest difference in terms of depth of field, especially at the wider end of the lens.

However, I do like the extra stop of light that f/2.0 gives under low-light situations.

Thoughts and suggestions? My use cases are very broad—events, sports, travel, everything.

This is a tough one, and will be my dilemma as well.
I'd suggest waiting until you have both in hand to compare/contrast.

 

[Del Paso]

Very tempting...
Might be the replacement for my EF 24-70 f/2.8 II at some point. It's rather heavy (for obvious reasons), but if it can replace a 24-105 f/4 as a general purpose lens and 1-2 faster lenses for when larger apertures are needed, weight and size are less of an issue. Internal zooming also means no risk of cam roller wear like I had with the EF and RF f/4 zooms.
Good also that there is no built-in power zoom, that would have been a showstopper for me.
Canon advertises this lens as having the same performance as the RF 24-70 f/2.8 but with the added range. The MTF charts seem to support this, and look very good considering that this is a 4x zoom. Here are the charts for the new 24-105 f/2.8 compared to the RF 24-105 f/4 and the RF 24-70 f/2.8 (top to bottom):
View attachment 212626
View attachment 212627
View attachment 212628

Are there maybe somewhere MFTs for 35mm focal length? I couldn't find any for my most used focal...

 

[neuroanatomist]

This is a tough one, and will be my dilemma as well.
I'd suggest waiting until you have both in hand to compare/contrast.

That's my plan, but I expect I'll keep both.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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!!!!

View attachment 212612

I suppose the focus ring has a different texture (bigger ribbing) because of the, "Focus Ring with Tactile Feedback."

I think this is the first AF lens since the old FD mount (ignoring the Cine CN-e lenes). After all these years, seeing an aperture ring with "A" written on it again makes me feel a bit nostalgic.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I'm guessing that all Canon now need to do to further break the internet...is to announce the new R5mkII and the R1 and most forums will go into total melt down!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm guessing that all Canon now need to do to further break the internet...is to announce the new R5mkII and the R1 and most forums will go into total melt down!

Key selling point – they'll work with the aperture ring on the 24-105/2.8L.

Ok, maybe not the 'key' point, lol.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Key selling point – they'll work with the aperture ring on the 24-105/2.8L.

Ok, maybe not the 'key' point, lol.

For me it's not a huge selling point, I've been using camera body based Aperture selection since my old A-1 and AE-1 Program. It's just nice to see an aperture ring on a modern lens.
Apparently the aperture ring works fine on the R5 & R6ii in movie mode, just not in photography stils mode. I suspect this code is unlocked on the new R5c firmware. Who knows if we'll get it released on the current range of stills cameras.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I was mulling over the difference between the 28-70mm f2.0 and the new 24-105mm f2.8. It occurred to me that Canon have introduced the normal 24-70mm f2.8 and 24-105mm f4 lenses and then with these two lenses, they have dropped a stop on each. The 28-70mm f2.0 is a whole stop brighter than the f2.8 version and now Canon have done the same for the 24-105mm. You can see their logic and Talk about taking these lenses to the next level.
Nice.
I'm really curious what the portraits are like at 105mm f2.8. They should have nice and creamy backgrounds due to the close MFD.

 

[LovePhotography]

So the new 24-105... One stop faster than the f/4. IQ probably about the same (both good). Slightly better bokeh, slightly better low light and high speed (usually fairly easily compensated by ISO change). But, much bigger, heavier, more obvious for walking around, and, of course, considerably more expensive.
. If I didn't have 24-105, 24-240, and others, I guess I would. But, $3k and two pounds for one stop? Not that impressed.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So the new 24-105... One stop faster than the f/4. IQ probably about the same (both good).

Based on the MTFs, the RF 24-105/2.8 is slightly better than the RF 24-70/2.8, which in turn is a bit more than slightly better than the RF 24-105/4L. So I’d say the f/2.8 version will be noticeably sharper than the f/4, though the latter is quite good.

If I didn't have 24-105, 24-240, and others, I guess I would. But, $3k and two pounds for one stop? Not that impressed.

A stop of light is double the amount of light. Compare the EF 300/4 to the EF 300/2.8. The EF 400/5.6 to the 400/4 DO. The 70-200 zooms have less of a difference, but the design for those lenses is less complex.

Regardless, an f/2.8 zoom spanning this range is impressive.

 

[scyrene]

I'm really curious what the portraits are like at 105mm f2.8. They should have nice and creamy backgrounds due to the close MFD.

I'd be interested to see that compared to the 100mm f/2.8 macro.

 

[MMP]

I'd be interested to see that compared to the 100mm f/2.8 macro.

Exactly my thoughts when I first heard about this lens. I already own the RF100L and this obviously isn't beating the MFD of the macro.

I thought about if this could be a better general purpose lens than my 28-70, but I'd have a hard time giving up the f/2 for the extra reach.

 

[highdesertmesa]

Wondering if this will lean hard into software correction being required at the wide end or if they kept it optically well-corrected at 24mm.

 

[danfaz]

So the new 24-105... One stop faster than the f/4. IQ probably about the same (both good). Slightly better bokeh, slightly better low light and high speed (usually fairly easily compensated by ISO change). But, much bigger, heavier, more obvious for walking around, and, of course, considerably more expensive.
. If I didn't have 24-105, 24-240, and others, I guess I would. But, $3k and two pounds for one stop? Not that impressed.

Well, not everyone can be impressed, but IMO, this is the f/4 version on steroids.
It addresses any perceived weaknesses the f/4 has, and then some. It's now a hybrid lens that has unique features for video.
Win-win in my book, and I am stoked to get this lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I thought about if this could be a better general purpose lens than my 28-70, but I'd have a hard time giving up the f/2 for the extra reach.

You see what Canon has done, right?

The ‘age old’ debate between a wider aperture and more reach. For a couple of decades it was 24-70/2.8 vs. 24-105/4. Pick one of the two, or buy both.

Now, it’s 28-70/2 vs. 24-105/2.8. And vs. 24-105/4 if you want smaller/lighter. Pick one, two or all three.

Clever Canon.

 

[Walrus]

I thought about if this could be a better general purpose lens than my 28-70, but I'd have a hard time giving up the f/2 for the extra reach.

If I had the choice, in the specific situation I would keep the f2; 35mm is not enough extra reach to give up brightness.
OTOH I would probably give up the f2 brightness for something like the Tamron 35-150, than can cover for both 24-70/24-105 and 70-200.

Even with 105mm on the long end, with my style of shooting at ceremonies I would still need a 70-200, or at least a 135 f1.8/2 on the second body, so still two heavy lenses and thus two big and heavy rigs; from that pov, the 24-105 doesn't give me anything more then a 24-70 (but it's way heavier, and also being IF is long as the EF 70-200; having both of them on you for 10/12/14 hrs would be hell).
While with a 35-150 on main, I can have the backup RP with a small and light prime like the RF 16 or an adapted EF 20, and have a super small and light backup body that I wouldn't even feel it's there.

Looks like a ceremony lens, but I don't feel it really is; with 24-70, 28-70 and 24-105 already existing, a 35-120/150 f2.8 would have been much more sense in focal lengths differentiation. I'm pretty sure if Samyang and Tamron can do it, even starting at f2 on the wide side, certainly Canon could have done it at constant f2.8

A lost occasion, what a shame.