Canon RF 24-300mm f/2.8-5.6L IS USM optical formula patent published

[neuroanatomist]

The RF 24-105/4 was a huge improvement and I was really happy with it for 2-3 years. I have to say it's actually substantially worse than the 50/1.8, 100/2.8, 100-500, and possibly just better than the 16/2.8. I'm actually shooting the 50/1.8 as my main lens again. But, I think I am being pickier than I need to be.

As I’ve stated (on multiple occasions already), it seems likely that you have a poor copy of the RF 24-105/4L. Compare Canon’s theoretical MTFs, the 24-105/4 is not worse than the 50/1.8, the L zoom is better. Actual production lenses will not be better than their theoretical MTFs, but certainly can be worse. From everything you posted, your 24-105/4 seems to be an outlier in its poor performance. If your 50/1.8 is better, there’s something wrong with your 24-105/4.

You can continue to ignore my point, or you can send your lens in for evaluation/service. If you really want an improved 24-105/4, honestly that’s the best place for you to start.

 

[divinshire]

As I’ve stated (on multiple occasions already), it seems likely that you have a poor copy of the RF 24-105/4L. Compare Canon’s theoretical MTFs, the 24-105/4 is not worse than the 50/1.8, the L zoom is better. Actual production lenses will not be better than their theoretical MTFs, but certainly can be worse. From everything you posted, your 24-105/4 seems to be an outlier in its poor performance. If your 50/1.8 is better, there’s something wrong with your 24-105/4.

You can continue to ignore my point, or you can send your lens in for evaluation/service. If you really want an improved 24-105/4, honestly that’s the best place for you to start.

completely agree. i have the RF24-105 F4L and its a ripper lens. sharp all the way through. no issues. I haven't used my 50mm lens since i got it. no need anymore. could be user error as well...just saying!

 

[jaygould]

My 24-105 f4 is noticeably softer than my 50mm f1.8 STM as well.

 

[DhlcadR6]

shocked its not a 7.1 aperture.... I really hope Canon lives up to the hype it's built around its ability to build new and unique lenses. We went into the RF mount expecting a lot of innovation, but to the same degree that we've been impressed, we've also been pretty disappointed. I still cant forgive that 100-500 L lens with that eye watering price point. lol

It's [email protected] but still gives fast AF and decent image quality. It's still a strong product in its class. That's the reason Canon dare to price it that high at the start. However if you look into the used market, they are reasonable in mint condition(some even with warranty).

Z100-400&FE100-40GM are too heavy. Tamron 150-500 and Sigma 150-600 are also big and not as quick AF wise, despite the faster f number. Sony 200-600 and Nikon 180-600 is in different league.

 

[DhlcadR6]

If this RF24-300 can be made into a size of RF24-70L/RF15-35L...I'm willing to buy one even if it cost 2000~2500USD.

 

[masterpix]

Canon produced an EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM during the DSLR days that was a favourite of a smaller niche of photographers. We have had questions thrown our way asking if Canon would bring a modern RF version of this lens to the line-up, which we couldn’t and still can’t answer with any level of

See full article...

That is the ideal lens for traveling with the family where you don't want to change lenses all the times and still want to be able to pick wide to long distance shots. I do wish they bring that to life cause it going to save a lot of weight for lot of people.

 

[Rudolf_Appel]

It's going to be expensive and quite large.

Yes. However, the 24-300 mm f4-5.6 might mitigate that size/weight/price a bit, it will still be a premium price I am afraid. But it will be a fantastic lens to travel. Combine it with an R5 and you are ready for anything. I used to have the Nikkor 28-300 mm f3.5-5.6 on a D700, travelled the world with it and hardly took it off during travels. Perfect combination. Regretted that I sold that kit and am now looking for a replacement in the mirrorless technology. This would be it.

 

[Rudolf_Appel]

These are the first mega zoom lenses reaching up to 300 mm. At f5.6. It will be great lenses for all day use.

 

[SwissFrank]

completely agree. i have the RF24-105 F4L and its a ripper lens. sharp all the way through. no issues. I haven't used my 50mm lens since i got it. no need anymore. could be user error as well...just saying!

Here's some test results I made using both lenses 10x at each shutter speed, and the conclusions I drew.

Let me know (probably on that thread is best) if anything is unclear.

I'd say definitely use the 50/1.8 for bokeh, but also (strangely!!!!) because it seems to do a lot better with IS when shooting below 1/30.

50mm SHOOTOUT! Detailed Analysis of the Hand-Holdability and General Sharpness of the RF50/1.8 vs. the RF24-105/4LIS

See my other posts for details of the goals and methodology. But in short, these targets are 1:1 selections from laser printer-printed targets under household incandescent, hand-held in a seated position. The selections are sorted, for each shutter speed, from sharpest to least sharp. A...

www.canonrumors.com

 

[Marphoto]

It\'s interesting that Canon continues to patent a fair number of lenses though we\'re not necessarily seeing this translate to actual product. They\'re encountering production issues as exemplified by the shortage of the expensive 100-300 f/2.8 and who knows when the 200-500 will see the market? I\'ve been disappointed that Canon hasn\'t been all that \"innovative\" and has essentially abandoned the DO technology. More disconcerting is that Canon has overlooked the middle market and appears to be focused on producing entry level lenses or stratospherically priced L ones. Meanwhile, Nikon has produced some tremendous offerings on their own or in collaboration with Tamron particularly in the mid-market. A $1200 f/2.8 70-180? It\'s small, light, doesn\'t have built in IS, but is a great performer. Likewise, the upcoming 180-600 f/6.3, and the 800 VR f/6.3 are affordable and outstanding. FWIW, I shot the 180-600 in testing and it is super and the 800 f/6.3 rivals the 600 f/4 + 1.4 TC in sharpness for less than 1/2 the price of a Canon. Plus, it\'s smaller than the older Canon 500 f/4 IS II and is hand holdable. Hey Canon, where are the innovations?

 

[koenkooi]

[...] I've been disappointed that Canon hasn't been all that "innovative" and has essentially abandoned the DO technology. [...]

Apart from the RF600 and R800 that use DO, right?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I\'ve been disappointed that Canon hasn\'t been all that \"innovative\" and has essentially abandoned the DO technology.

They’ve stopped putting a green ring around DO lenses. The RF 600/11 and RF 800/11 are both DO lenses. Show me some other ILC manufacturer with an 800mm lens under $1K. Those lenses are certainly innovative for people who can't afford o drop >$10K on a great white lens.

 

[SnowMiku]

It looks like a nice jack of all trades lens, this would be great to use if your going somewhere but don't really know what to expect and don't want to carry other lenses around. Does anyone have any guesses on how much this lens would cost?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Does anyone have any guesses on how much this lens would cost?

The EF 28-300L launched at $2500, and that was 19 years ago. Given today's pricing and RF prices relative to EF, I'd guess somewhere in the $3200-3500 range.

 

[Marphoto]

Apart from the RF600 and R800 that use DO, right?

At F11? Ok. Whatever.

 

[neuroanatomist]

…the 800 VR f/6.3 [is] affordable and outstanding.

At $6500? Ok. Whatever.

 

[Marphoto]

They’ve stopped putting a green ring around DO lenses. The RF 600/11 and RF 800/11 are both DO lenses. Show me some other ILC manufacturer with an 800mm lens under $1K. Those lenses are certainly innovative for people who can't afford o drop >$10K on a great white lens.

You've affirmed what I've said. "More disconcerting is that Canon has overlooked the middle market and appears to be focused on producing entry level lenses or stratospherically priced L ones." The entry level DO lenses are fixed at f/11 and suffer a whole host of limitations from aperture to bokeh. The long primes are heavy, dated, and astronomically expensive. Nikon has successfully targeted the middle and the 800 f 6.3, for example is superb both in terms of size and performance. It is hand holdable, smaller, lighter, and almost a 1/3rd of the price of Canon's RF 800. Also it's sharp wide open (https://cameradecision.com/lenses/img/other/Nikon-Nikkor-Z-800mm-F6.3-VR-S-mtf-chart-1.jpg) and you should compare it against the $18k Canon (https://www.lensrentals.com/product-assets/4e5d812c-4f9c-4022-b1ab-263e16aea902/Table 2.jpeg). Look, I wanted Canon to be producing these kinds of lenses but they've been haphazard, slow to respond, have adopted a strategy which leaves me out. Besides, where is my high MP BSI camera? I'm holding one from Nikon called the Z8 and there is no bet that the R5II will offer a BSI, the range of FPS, fast sensor read out, fully customizable buttons ... The bottom line is Canon left me, I didn't leave Canon.

 

[Marphoto]

At $6500? Ok. Whatever.

Compared to a Canon 800 f/5.6 at $19,000? I'd say yes. The 800 f/11 is not even a consideration.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You've affirmed what I've said. "More disconcerting is that Canon has overlooked the middle market and appears to be focused on producing entry level lenses or stratospherically priced L ones." ... Nikon has successfully targeted the middle

Most likely, Nikon is targeting the middle because Canon isn't. Same reason Sony abandoned DLSRs for MILCs, then targeted FF MILCs...Canon wasn't already dominating that market.

Whether or not Nikon is successful with their strategy remains to be seen. Every year for the past 5 they've lost ILC market share ('lost' is being kind, hemorrhaged market share would be closer to the truth). I suspect Canon's strategy will result in their continued domination of the market. They've been the #1 ILC brand for 20 years. They became the #1 MILC brand in Japan last year, and probably globally as well (those data aren't out until 4Q). Nikon used to be #2, now they're a distant #3 and falling further behind.

The bottom line is Canon left me, I didn't leave Canon.

Canon didn't leave you. Canon doesn't care about you, or me, or any individual. They care about the market, and their strategy is manifestly successful. You're happy with Nikon's offerings, good for you!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Compared to a Canon 800 f/5.6 at $19,000? I'd say yes. The 800 f/11 is not even a consideration.

It's all relative. Probably a large fraction of people who can afford to spend $6500 on a Nikon 800/6.3 can also afford to spend $13500 on a Canon 600/4 + 1.4x, or $17000 on the Canon 800/5.6 (it's $2K less than you state, but that's a quibble at those prices). Of course, since that $6500 Nikon lens won't work on a Canon body, for users on a Canon gear forum the outlay would also need to include a few thousand dollars for a good Nikon MILC.

On the other hand, for the vast majority of ILC users a lens costing $6500 is just as unaffordable as a lens costing $17000, whereas a lens costing only $800 (with the currently available $100 discount) is something within reason for those wanting to reach 800mm with good IQ (which the 800/11 delivers).