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

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.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
So the new 24-105... One stop faster than the f/4. IQ probably about the same (both good)
I’d say the f/2.8 version will be noticeably sharper than the f/4, though the latter is quite good.


Direct comparison with real life shots at 4:40. The new f/2.8 version is noticeably sharper (at least at the wide end).
 
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
3,184
4,050
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.
Funny how different needs or wishes can be!
The Tamron 35-150 represents , for me, the lens I'd never think of buying.
It's kind of a "bastard lens" (no offence meant!). Not wide enough, not long enough, it replaces neither a 24-70, nor a 70-200. I'd also miss OIS from 70 to 150mm, IBIS doesn't really help there.
As an EDC lens, I'd have to add at least a moderate WA, which contradicts the EDC one lens principle.
Yet, I can understand your point of view even though I don't see the Tamron as an alternative to the RF 24-105 f2,8...
Quote: "What a shame" ????? Sorry, but I don't get it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

LovePhotography

Texas Not Taxes.
Aug 24, 2014
263
13
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. (y)
I'm looking for a multi-purpose "L" quality zoom to replace my iPhone. I currently use my 24-240 for walking around sightseeing, putting in the bike on long bike rides, but it is not weatherproof. Image quality good, but not magical. If they were to build such a lens (similar to the old EF 35-350 but improved computer technology, and RF mount), Canon is apparently concerned that they will diminish sales of their existing line of lenses. When, in fact, what they will be doing is competing more effectively against smart phones, who are the real enemy of SLR cameras. CANON- YOUR ENEMY IS CELL PHONES NOT OTHER RF LENSES! Make an "L" quality RF 24-240 f/4!!!!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jd7

CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
1,059
414
Funny how different needs or wishes can be!
The Tamron 35-150 represents , for me, the lens I'd never think of buying.
It's kind of a "bastard lens" (no offence meant!). Not wide enough, not long enough, it replaces neither a 24-70, nor a 70-200. I'd also miss OIS from 70 to 150mm, IBIS doesn't really help there.
As an EDC lens, I'd have to add at least a moderate WA, which contradicts the EDC one lens principle.
Yet, I can understand your point of view even though I don't see the Tamron as an alternative to the RF 24-105 f2,8...
Quote: "What a shame" ????? Sorry, but I don't get it!
You are certainly correct about different needs and wants. I'm happy for all the people who are excited about the 24-105 f,/2.8 and I know there are people who will love it and put it to good use. I definitely wouldn't say it's a missed opportunity! However I'm one who, like Walrus, have no interest myself. I can understand why you say the 35-150 isn't wide enough for EDC, but for me the size and weight of the 24-105 f/2.8 also contradict the EDC principle. That means I would still want something else for EDC, so the 24-105 f/2.8 would be kept for things like events and portraits and perhaps some sport ... And for that use I would prefer the 35-150 f/2-2.8. Being able to get f/2 at 35mm plus get all the way to 150 f/2.8 would be more of a drawcard for me than the extra width of the 24-105. If I had the 35-150 plus a smallish UWA I could do a lot of damage I reckon! Throw in a zoom for EDC and a smallish prime (and maybe something along the lines of a 100-400) and I would be pretty well covered for the photography I do. That's just me though, of course, and I very much look forward to seeing what others produce with the 24-105.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
If I had the 35-150 plus a smallish UWA I could do a lot of damage I reckon!

Exactly my thoughts; I rarely shoot under 35, so for me if I think at two different rigs:

R6 + 24-105 f2.8 (or 24-70 f2.8 or 28-70 f2 as it's the same for me here)
RP + 135 f1.8/2 OR 70-200 f2.8
Which is what I do today

OR

R6 (or a Sony...) with 35-150 f2-2.8
RP + RF16 or any 18mm or 20mm (there's EF 20 to adapt, but it's a so so lens) Canon could present in the future..or any Sony with a 18/20mm existing third party lens

If I'm thinking what I want to carry for 10+ hours on a wedding, I'll surely go for the second rig, is a no brainer; and the actual camera switches will be rare to say the least, so rare that I could probably just walk around with the R6 + 35-150 only, and keep the RP + wide angle ready in the bag on the floor, and take it out only when needed for a specific shot.
I couldn't walk around (size&weight aside for now) with just the 24-105, it's still too short, I would need a backup with more tele. And if I need to have a backup on me, it's better a wide angle backup then a tele, for the obvious size&weight reasons.
Screenshot 2023-11-04 alle 16.39.15.png
This is one of my wedding with 24-70 + 135, it's clear that I really start really shooting at 35mm, on 247 delivered pics, just 14 were shot under 35mm, and I reckon I shoot them "because the zoom was there", if my lens would have started at 35mm, I would probably have shot at that focal length the seven 30&28mm pics, just taking a step back, and probably I would have shoot those other seven 24mm pics at 16/18/20mm and then slightly crop.

I'm enthusiast too for the 24-105, don't get me wrong, it's a turning page, for sure; but even if I had the money (which I don't), I wouldn't buy it, because is not what fits me, it's not as flexible as a 35-150 for what I shoot. For what I do and how I do it, it doesn't give me anything more then the 24-70 or the 28-70.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
30,925
12,613
R6 + 24-105 f2.8 (or 24-70 f2.8 or 28-70 f2 as it's the same for me here)
For what I do and how I do it, it doesn't give me anything more then the 24-70 or the 28-70.
At the wide end, yes. The fact that 42% of your shots are at 70mm suggests you’d significantly benefit from having the 24-105/2.8, in terms of framing if not budget.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
May 4, 2011
1,175
251
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.

I'm very curious as well. Although I don't expect the sharpness to be on the level of the 100 Macro (none of the zoom lenses are, including the 70-200), if it's able to at least match the 24-70 through that range and match the 70-200 up to 105mm at 2.8, I'd consider that a win, honestly. That would be impressive for a lens in that class.

EDIT: After looking at the comparison video, it looks like at least at 24mm, the new lens is clearly sharper at least in the center. With the 70mm comparison it looked to me as if the 24-70 was the sharpest (although interestingly enough, the new 24-105 frames tighter), and 105mm seemed fairly close, with the 2.8 version once again framing tighter and resolving fine details a bit better.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DrD

Jun 11, 2021
52
51
B&H lists the expected ship date for the RF 24-105/2.8L as December 14th. I hope to have mine 1-2 days later.
It would be very interesting to see how the new lens compares to the 28-70, both at f2.8. Christopher Frost (YT) did an updated lens review of the 28-70 f2 using the R5 and R7 and it was less than stellar, especially in the corners. Perhaps after a week or so with the new 24-105 you could tell us how it fares via-a-viz the 28-70 f2?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
3,184
4,050
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.
And here we go again...:ROFLMAO:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0