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

[Snapster]

Ok we now have an abundance of innovative massive RF zoom lenses. Great.

Now let's please get back to basics and finally fill in the missing RF primes. Or let other manufacturers do it with existing lenses if Canon wants to innovate a 35-400mm f/2-5.6 L Z Y next.

I'm more excited about the Viltrox 16mm f/1.8 and Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM even though I don't own an FE camera body.

 

[juststeve]

On the subject of Nikon's fluorite use, Nikonian Thom Hogan has written Nikon (and Sony) are most likely getting the fluorite from Canon as Canon is the only producer of large crystal fluorite for optical use.

 

[scyrene]

The current "cheap" 35 and 50 are so bad. They focus so slowly. So loudly. They are built and feel as if one knock could break them.

No.

 

[clearwaterphotog]

No.

Why bother replying? Your statement is just as pretentious as the one you're replying to.

Personally I find the 50/1.8 to have pretty ugly bokeh. Crazy rims around specular highlights. I wouldn't say the lens is "so bad", but it's very clearly a ~$100 lens. The only reason I have it is because I got it for $100 and it serves to create shallow DoF, and is a lens I could gift to a friend if they decided they wanted to jump into RF on a budget. Given that the bokeh is somewhat ugly though, I've lost interest in using it for that reason. I only need to spend 20x the cost to get the next step up in quality though!

 

[scyrene]

Why bother replying? Your statement is just as pretentious as the one you're replying to.

Personally I find the 50/1.8 to have pretty ugly bokeh. Crazy rims around specular highlights. I wouldn't say the lens is "so bad", but it's very clearly a ~$100 lens. The only reason I have it is because I got it for $100 and it serves to create shallow DoF, and is a lens I could gift to a friend if they decided they wanted to jump into RF on a budget. Given that the bokeh is somewhat ugly though, I've lost interest in using it for that reason. I only need to spend 20x the cost to get the next step up in quality though!

Is pretentious the word you wanted? Because I can't see how it applies. Your criticisms are qualified (I can't comment on their merit because quality of bokeh is a tricky thing to be objective about), whereas the other person's were exaggerated.

 

[clearwaterphotog]

Is pretentious the word you wanted? Because I can't see how it applies. Your criticisms are qualified (I can't comment on their merit because quality of bokeh is a tricky thing to be objective about), whereas the other person's were exaggerated.

I think so. One word replies, whether they're to agree or disagree, are unqualified, unproductive to discussion (at least in turn-based discussions we find online; real-time debates are different), and serve no purpose other than to give yourself a voice even though nothing you said actually mattered. Sometimes it might be because you think your word carries enough weight that you don't need to qualify your statement, or it's just plain dismissive, and that's what's pretentious. I've got no beef with you in particular, as I see one word replies more than I'd like, for some reason especially in camera forums. I expect to see it all the time in something like Facebook comments, but I think we can do a little better here.

 

[Del Paso]

On the subject of Nikon's fluorite use, Nikonian Thom Hogan has written Nikon (and Sony) are most likely getting the fluorite from Canon as Canon is the only producer of large crystal fluorite for optical use.

I heard it too, it's certainly true!

 

[chasingrealness]

I owned the 24-105 from 2012 to 2018 and it was such a useful lens but I always felt that the f/4 aperture was too much of a limitation past that point. But then the 24-70mm wasn’t enough versatility to really attract me, either. Both were almost lenses for me (don’t hate I know the 24-70mm is like the most used lens in professional photography). I love the idea of the 28-70 f/2 since I shoot mostly primes these days but this lens might be the reason I don’t buy that one.

Honestly I can’t wait to see the IQ results because this is something (along with that 200-800mm) that I’ll be looking to buy next year if it has that and good autofocus performance in the bag.

Guess the 35mm f/1.2 will just have to wait in that case?

 

[chasingrealness]

Z obviously means Z mount as in this is Canon’s first L series lens for the Nikon mirrorless ecosystem.

 

[scyrene]

I think so. One word replies, whether they're to agree or disagree, are unqualified, unproductive to discussion (at least in turn-based discussions we find online; real-time debates are different), and serve no purpose other than to give yourself a voice even though nothing you said actually mattered. Sometimes it might be because you think your word carries enough weight that you don't need to qualify your statement, or it's just plain dismissive, and that's what's pretentious. I've got no beef with you in particular, as I see one word replies more than I'd like, for some reason especially in camera forums. I expect to see it all the time in something like Facebook comments, but I think we can do a little better here.

Oh I was definitely being dismissive, I think it was deserved; I still wouldn't call that pretentious, but maybe it's a linguistic difference. I dunno how long you've been on here but I've seen trolls trashing gear for about a decade, and I ran out of patience for it long ago. Criticism should be proportionate, not "X is junk", which is rarely even vaguely true. Mostly I ignore these accounts but not always; adds a bit of variety while we wait for the announcements

 

[Mountain Dave]

I've been thinking for a while that Canon is really concentrating on zooms for the RF mount. The first hint was the 28-70 2.0. Now the last 5-6 lens announcements have been zooms IIRC. I'm a big prime lens fan but I have to admit the RF L zooms are a delight to use and I've been using primes less often. Now I have 4 RF L zooms and only one prime (135 1.8) which is truly extraordinary. However, I may not buy another L prime.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I just don't see the need for f/2.8 for it though.

Sometimes it's a creative choice. One could argue that a 24-105/2.8 doesn't offer much more than 24-70/2.8 does if their 2nd lens choice is and a 70-200/f2.8. However, the 70-200's MFD at 70mm-105mm is a lot further than it will be with the 24-105/2.8. Also a 2 lens line up such as a 24-105/2.8 and 100-300/2.8 would be pretty versatile and offer all of the creative differntial focussing one could realistically ever need.

Some people prefer fast primes to versatile zoom focal ranges. These days we have so many options.

I like to have both fast primes and f2.8 Zoom options, depending on the gig.

I see some here are considering how this new lens fits with their existing 28-70/f2.0. I think for many the 28-70/f2, 24-70/2.8 or even a 24-104/f4 are the right choice for them. There's no wrong choices here.
Everyone's use case scenario is different and these days we have SO much choice. The gear available to day is way superior than even a few years back.

 

[AlP]

On RF lenses, the focus ring has narrow ribbing and the zoom ring has wide ribbing. Assuming that holds true, then the focus ring is wider and closer to the body, while the zoom ring is narrower and further away. Either Canon swapped the texture of the rings for this lens compared to other RF lenses, or they changed the relative sizes of the rings (usually the zoom ring is larger or the same size as the focus ring).

All RF zoom lenses have a wider zoom ring than focus ring. The 28-70 being (maybe) an exception if one only considers the rubberized part of the ring. Also, for all RF zooms with a ring on the tapered part of the lens, that ring is the the zoom ring, never the focus ring. It could be that Canon decided to do something different here, maybe because of the powered zoom, but to me that would be odd from a usability perspective.
The ribbing on the focus ring (assuming that it is the focus ring) is much wider than that of the zoom ring of other RF lenses, while the ribbing on the zoom ring is the same as that of other zoom rings. That also speaks against a swap of focus and zoom rings, but would mean a new type of ribbing on the focus ring. Maybe that is done to allow follow-focus rigs. Anyways, tomorrow we'll have the answer.

The tripod foot looks odd, generally. Evidently it's a new design.

"Evidently" if the image shows the actual product and is not photoshopped. I would think that it shows an actual product though.

 

[Rick D.]

As someone that shoots primarily low light shows, festivals and concerts, this is the Grail, period. I'll sell my 70-200 RF in a minute to get this lens. It's one replacing two for me.

 

[danfaz]

Price according to Ordinary Filmaker - $2999 USD

 

[frankchn]

Price according to Ordinary Filmaker - $2899 USD

That's pretty competitive, actually.

 

[danfaz]

That's pretty competitive, actually.

I edited my post to $2999. I was watching his video, and at first he said 2899, then said 2999. Not a huge difference LOL.
Seems to be priced where a number of people thought it would be.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Price according to Ordinary Filmaker - $2999 USD

Do I need to repeat this again?

 

[navastronia]

That's why we have two cameras strapped to us at all times (most of us do anyway)

We change up to suit the scene. Most of the day I'll be 28-70 and a 50 - But during speeches or a church ceremony the reach is fairly finite.

I started shooting weddings this year, and as much as I like my primes, for weddings, they're a PITA. I hope to shoot with a 15-35/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 next year and let those cover everything, one on each body.

 

[LovePhotography]

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).