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

[GMCPhotographics]

The post has been updated. "Z" is for powerZoom. Can't wait to see how that gets implemented.

I'm guessing Canon are looking at ways to reduce bulk and simplify their design construction. Removing the mechanical linkages and manual zoom ring really does simplify the construction of a lens. We are starting to see the rise of the fully electronically controlled lens........Please God...no future push button AF controls!

When I saw this looks of this lens it reminded me of the old black "magic drainpipe" EF 80-200/f2.8. However, I belive the focal length rumours are correct. It has a similar control layout and lens size to the Cine CNE T2.8 30-105mm f2.8. So maybe that's the optic source for this new RF lens. The CNE lens is a T2.8, not and F2.8 lens. So this lens could be marketed as a F2.5 optic.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Definitely!

This will certainly be a very versatile lens. A 'standard zoom' sounds easy but I suppose if it really was, there would not be so many choices.

I started with an EF-S 17-55/2.8 on crop, moved to a 24-105/4L on FF then switched to the 24-70/2.8L II in part for the wider aperture and in part for better AF (more and more accurate AF points with an f/2.8 lens). When I bought the EOS R to try, I got the RF 24-105/4L as my only RF lens. Once I switched from the 1D X to the R3, I sold the EF 24-70/2.8 II but given that better AF was no longer a factor with f/2.8 lenses, I had trouble justifying the RF 24-70/2.8...so I got the RF 28-70/2 instead.

But the versatility of the 24-105mm range coupled with the faster aperture will be wonderful. I'll still keep the 24-105/4L, it will be used for travel.

Let me repeat...

View attachment 212588

I think it's one of those lenses that we can argue the merits and consequences on a forum all day long. Then when we actually get it in our hands at a shop or show...we ask our selves...OMG...where have you been all my life...I NEED this!

Although this lens looks big in the spy shot, using a ruler and measuring the front element width (assuming it's 82mm) it's easy to measure and adjust the approximate lens length. It's about 16.5cm long. Which is about the same size as an extended EF24-70mm f2.8 IIL with an EF to RF adapter. So not actually much bigger than some other 24-70/2.8 rigs currently in use. Sure, it'll be heavier and have IS and all the other fantastic RF gubbins. I'm sure once we see it extended (hopefully internal zoom) with it's lens hood it might be a lot larger.

 

[Del Paso]

Really exceptional news
But owning the EF24-70 2.8, the RF24-105 4.0 as well as the RF28-70 2.0 it's hard to argue with my wife
With “Happy wife, happy life” in mind, I have to skip this beauty, even it will break the internet

Just order the 24-105 via Internet, and when it gets delivered, tell her it's a lens you've sent for repair.
Believe me, it works (provided you have a secret bank-account)

 

[GMAX]

Just order the 24-105 via Internet, and when it gets delivered, tell her it's a lens you've sent for repair.
Believe me, it works (provided you have a secret bank-account)

Mhh, even I don't tell my wife everything I buy, I don't lie to her

 

[scyrene]

Definitely!

This will certainly be a very versatile lens. A 'standard zoom' sounds easy but I suppose if it really was, there would not be so many choices.

I started with an EF-S 17-55/2.8 on crop, moved to a 24-105/4L on FF then switched to the 24-70/2.8L II in part for the wider aperture and in part for better AF (more and more accurate AF points with an f/2.8 lens). When I bought the EOS R to try, I got the RF 24-105/4L as my only RF lens. Once I switched from the 1D X to the R3, I sold the EF 24-70/2.8 II but given that better AF was no longer a factor with f/2.8 lenses, I had trouble justifying the RF 24-70/2.8...so I got the RF 28-70/2 instead.

But the versatility of the 24-105mm range coupled with the faster aperture will be wonderful. I'll still keep the 24-105/4L, it will be used for travel.

Let me repeat...

View attachment 212588

Would you keep the 28-70 as well?

 

[P-visie]

At first sight I would say this image is a fake, as I'd be very surprised that Canon make such a tripod mount, with Arca grooves and detachable feet looking very much like a Nikon. Specially as it would be totally different from the 100-300 it's supposed to go with.

I might be totally wrong, but that would be another big surprise after the non-L white lens.

The EF 100-400mm II has a similar lens collar where the ring remains on the lens and you can remove (only) the foot. In my opinion not very practical, when you remove the foot, the attachement for the foot remains with the ring on the lens and protrudes +/- 2 cm. My copy of the lens was not very robust: within a year I could not tighten the foot to the ring and I had to send the complete lens in for repair.

 

[Yoms]

Am I the only one not convinced that Z means power zoom? I feel like Z is Canon saying this is an internal zoom lens.

A few weeks ago we were talking about Canon releasing another RF 70-200 that has internal zoom and wondering what they would name it to differentiate.

If this has the "Z" naming convention, it could be leading to 70-200mm "Z"

Maybe the Z naming is just Canon trying to screw Nikon up so that when people type "Z lens" in the search bar of Amazon, B&H, etc. their lenses also pop up in the results

 

[neuroanatomist]

Would you keep the 28-70 as well?

I would. I suppose if over time I found that I no longer used the 28-70/2, then I would sell it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The EF 100-400mm II has a similar lens collar where the ring remains on the lens and you can remove (only) the foot. In my opinion not very practical, when you remove the foot, the attachement for the foot remains with the ring on the lens and protrudes +/- 2 cm.

Given the likely size of this lens, I really hope the tripod collar is fully removable. I keep the tripod collars off my 70-200/2.8 and 100-500, and have only used them rarely. Actually, if the tripod color of the 100-300/2.8 was removable, I would take that off sometimes as well.

 

[JFx]

How could a 24-105 be this big, is my first response. Wonder (hope?) if it's a 70-200 pseudo-disguised.

I bet that Canon likes the look of its big white lenses lined up alongside events in photographer stands, and the use of such lenses in inhospitable conditions that an internally zoomed lens would be more resistant to.

 

[SebastiaoSal]

This very well will be the definitive wedding lens.

No way in hell am I trading in my 28-70 F/2L for it!

 

[danfaz]

Wonder (hope?) if it's a 70-200 pseudo-disguised.

I know this is crazy talk...but this leaked pic almost looks like it could be a 70-200 II?
There are a lot of switches on that, very reminiscent of a 70-200.

That's what I was wondering, too.

 

[Del Paso]

Mhh, even I don't tell my wife everything I buy, I don't lie to her

In politics, advertising and mariage, not (always!) telling the truth is a necessity for survival.
Herewith, you are officially granted my absolution (no matter how many lenses you get back from "repair")

 

[Steve Balcombe]

If true, this is the sort of lens which will be an absolute joy to own and use, and it makes me wish I had a use/justification for it. It will be *very* expensive, but I've owned at least one big white for a number of years, and upgraded a couple of times, so I'm kind of inured to it.

 

[Del Paso]

That's what I was wondering, too.

I guess for "prestige" reasons, it will be much easier to sell a "big white" than another black lens. Sony's 200-600 is white too, so it could have been interpreted as this lens being just another cheapo. I'm absolutely sure that not only MTFs, but also real life results will contradict this assumption. And, in bright sun, exposed to high temperatures, physical expansion of this lens as a black one could quickly become a serious issue.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And, in bright sun, exposed to high temperatures, physical expansion of this lens as a black one could quickly become a serious issue.

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."

 

[eosuser1234]

Maybe the z means this is the "end all" lens. With the higher megapixel cameras, you can crop in enough, the 24-105 will cover 98% of all photos ever posted to the internet and the corresponding focal length according to exif metadata. Keep your ultra wides, buy this 24-105 and the new 200-800, and sell everything else. Its the end all solution.

 

[Del Paso]

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."

And I (humbly...) disagree with Nikon.
I've been to Death Valley in summertime with Leica R4 and the (black!) Apo Telyt 3,4/180. After a few hundred yards, I could no longer touch the camera and the lens. Back at the hotel, I noticed that the front lens of the Apo Telyt was cracked (no effect on pictures, fortunately). So, may Nikon say what they want to say, I rather rely on Canon's choice of white color for long lenses.
Since, the second time I visited Death Valley in August (didn't have the choice), I took the 5 DIII and the EF 100-400. Couldn't touch the body again (and yet I did it), but the lens still could be used without burnt fingers. And no front lens cracks...
Metal and plastics (sorry, high quality polymers) expand, and long teles or zooms are made of them.
PS: even in my Nikon times, manufactoring quality of moderate focal lengths Nikkors never convinced me. Aluminium and aluminium helicoids, with wide gaps filled with grease were not a proof of mechanical quality. Narrow machining tolerances cost...As much as I loved the F2 , compared to Leica or Zeiss lenses, the Nikkors were optically very good, but in my perception poorly engineered. Just take a look at a 30 years old Nikkor lens, when grease has gone.

 

[swkitt]

The EF 100-400mm II has a similar lens collar where the ring remains on the lens and you can remove (only) the foot. In my opinion not very practical, when you remove the foot, the attachement for the foot remains with the ring on the lens and protrudes +/- 2 cm. My copy of the lens was not very robust: within a year I could not tighten the foot to the ring and I had to send the complete lens in for repair.

It's not really similar. The Arca grooves but also the size of the tripod collar and the fact that a part remains always on the lens (when 99% of pics taken in the 24-105 range don't need a tripod), plus the fact it's totally different design from the 100-300 that is just out make me think this picture is fake.
We'll find out soon.

 

[Hubert Multana]

How many hours until premiere?