Correction: Canon is bringing us an RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM Macro

maniacalrobot

I'm New Here
Oct 5, 2018
10
4
everyone is seeing the 7.1 and predicting doom and the end of canon … as usual. Now agreed, 7.1 on the long end is not great, but it's absolutely fine for a lower cost kit lens, and, 7.1 is really not an issue if all the new R bodies come with IBIS + Lens IS, you'll get some stupidly high 5-7 stops of stabilization?
 

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
262
181
Sure, it's a neat party trick:

But not being a pro with a studio full of lighting options (which I believe is the target demo with such a lens), I don't know how on earth you light subjects that close.

I get the role of wider 1:2 macro, say 35-50mm or so for food/travel/lifestyle shots, but 24mm seems unworkable without a lot of extra 'stuff'.

- A
I don't understand why you're being so negative about it. For wide angle macro work, physically small lenses are best, and a zoom (even one as petite as this) wouldn't be first choice. But if you can at least focus the lens you're halfway there, and needing to do something about the light doesn't mean close focusing at the wide end isn't potentially useful. Extra light is needed for a lot of macro work, it goes with the territory.

Would you also decry the ability to shoot at very slow shutter speeds, because "extra stuff" - a tripod - is needed to make it useful?
 

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
262
181
Yes! Had to get to page 4 before somebody finally said that. The APS-C world is full of f/4-5.6 kit lenses and as an equivalent this is faster!
Further to this - today's big news on the lens front is that Olympus has launched a new 12-45 mm f/4 Pro lens. This is a full frame equivalent of 24-90 f/8 and retails for $649. Puts the RF 24-105 f/4-f7.1 into perspective doesn't it?
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
613
720
And now there's the price for it (at Nokishita, google-translated)



Not exceptionally cheap tbh.

That was my thoughts too. Asking 900 pounds for a rebel with kit lens seems a bit expensive. You can pick up a new grey market 800D with kit lens for 350. I know it's grey market and not quite the same but still.
 

Sdiver2489

EOS M50
Apr 17, 2013
28
5
Further to this - today's big news on the lens front is that Olympus has launched a new 12-45 mm f/4 Pro lens. This is a full frame equivalent of 24-90 f/8 and retails for $649. Puts the RF 24-105 f/4-f7.1 into perspective doesn't it?


First of all no, it's equivalent in aperture terms to f6.

Secondly, in terms of exposure this is a f7.1 lens. The Fuji is f4.

F7.1 is limiting in terms of exposure AND DOF.
 

BurningPlatform

EOS 90D
Mar 4, 2014
116
66
First of all no, it's equivalent in aperture terms to f6.

Secondly, in terms of exposure this is a f7.1 lens. The Fuji is f4.

F7.1 is limiting in terms of exposure AND DOF.
That was a crop 2 MFT lens, not Fuji. Equivalent to f8 FF in DOF AND light gathering capability (noise characteristics).
 

Sdiver2489

EOS M50
Apr 17, 2013
28
5
That was a crop 2 MFT lens, not Fuji. Equivalent to f8 FF in DOF AND light gathering capability (noise characteristics).
[
Woah did I just read that wrong? Could have sworn it said Fuji.

Anyway, does MFT work a different way that I am not familiar with? Isn't an f4 lens in terms of exposure still an f4 lens? I can't see this being different for MFT.
 

Sdiver2489

EOS M50
Apr 17, 2013
28
5
It is equivalent in exposure. Why do people forget that there's aperture, shutter speed AND iso?
I'm not forgetting that, but saying it's an f8 lens is using the crop factor to compare DOF. Unless someone wants to tell me how an f4 lens on MFT is different than any other lens on a different system.

Edit: ah I bet you are making a noise comparison AND and aperture comparison. Kinda silly to call it an f8 lens in terms of exposure imo. But if that makes it easier for you.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,596
1,452
[
Woah did I just read that wrong? Could have sworn it said Fuji.

Anyway, does MFT work a different way that I am not familiar with? Isn't an f4 lens in terms of exposure still an f4 lens? I can't see this being different for MFT.

It depends on how you want to compare between the systems, is it "Exact same framing, DoF and noise", "Same position to subject, don't care about framing, DoF or noise" or something else?
 

Bangrossi

I'm New Here
Feb 5, 2018
17
14
Indonesia
Hopefuly at 105mm f/7.1 image quality is excelent or at least on par with RF 24-105L.. it's frustating if the the lens can do 105 f/4 but the quality is so bad that it need to be stop down to f/8 to get acceptable sharpness.
 

FamilyGuy

EOS 90D
Feb 5, 2020
179
297
I’m going to speculate that they’re able to sell RP bodies at the kit price of under $1,500. They haven’t been able to remove that special, but I wonder how profitable the 24-240 kit is at that price?
So they make the RP kit with this lens. Correct the pricing on the 24-240 kit. Maybe $1,800 or $1,900? 24-105 is not a bad kit lens and I honestly would have paid a bit more for the 240 if this had at least got us in the door to talk about the RP.
 

Sdiver2489

EOS M50
Apr 17, 2013
28
5
It depends on how you want to compare between the systems, is it "Exact same framing, DoF and noise", "Same position to subject, don't care about framing, DoF or noise" or something else?

I get what you are going for...but noise isn't a direct property of the lens whereas DOF is so I get the aperture comparison. I think the noise comparison is a bit of a stretch but like I said if it helps you picture performance comparisons between systems I guess it works.

The problem I see here is we have sunken to comparing a brand new, RF mount lens to a MFT lens/camera system to make it sound better. That's not a good thing.

When people buy a dedicated camera instead of smartphones, they expect better performance and a lot of that comes from the ability to isolate the subject. When you remove that ability you end up with disappointed buyers.
 

TMACIOSZEK

Canon EOS R
Dec 11, 2019
76
68
Central Florida
pix.tmac.cc
Question: do gear-heads even take photographs? Answer: based on the comments regarding the 7.1 f stop, nope.
For decades, landscape photographers used f 8.0 as a sort of default. No problem shooting on ISO 100 film. My custom settings use 7.1 and I almost never need to change it. Literally 1000s of pics taken - even amazingly on cloudy days - at ISO 100 or 200 max. No problem. Even sunsets and in the after-glow. No problem.

Now, 7.1 may make this a no buy lens for those needing shallow DOF, but it's not an issue on a cloudy day.

It' only 395 grams. And 18.5 mm shorter than the RF version. So there are compromises. I'll take the smaller size and weight even with 7.1 every day of the week for a consumer lens.

f/7.1 is a perfectly fine aperture... it's just not an ideal MINIMUM aperture value. Especially at 105mm. Sure, there will be those that say, "I only shoot 7.1 or higher for macro and/or landscape!" And for you three photographers, that's awesome. I'm sure this lens will sell in the dozens to unsuspecting newbies, but I'd venture to guess that anyone serious about photography would rather have a more open aperture lens and then adjust to narrower apertures as situations present themselves.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
Would you also decry the ability to shoot at very slow shutter speeds, because "extra stuff" - a tripod - is needed to make it useful?


Not a tripod: lighting, principally. Handholding at 24mm with IBIS + lens IS = not a tripod but still very helpful.

Again, it's a neat feature. I just contend that full mag at MFD at 24mm will very challenging to net good shots.

- A
 

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
262
181
I get what you are going for...but noise isn't a direct property of the lens whereas DOF is so I get the aperture comparison. I think the noise comparison is a bit of a stretch but like I said if it helps you picture performance comparisons between systems I guess it works.

The problem I see here is we have sunken to comparing a brand new, RF mount lens to a MFT lens/camera system to make it sound better. That's not a good thing.

1) Depth of field is not a property of the lens alone, it's a property of the lens and sensor size combined.

2) The Olympus lens is also brand new, announced today, in fact that was the whole point of the comparison.

When people buy a dedicated camera instead of smartphones, they expect better performance and a lot of that comes from the ability to isolate the subject. When you remove that ability you end up with disappointed buyers.
That is also wrong. If we use the Samsung S10's main rear camera as an example of a decent smartphone camera, it has a full frame equivalent of about f/9, so our f/7.1 RF lens is only 2/3 stop better. **BUT** the RF lens is 105 mm, and magnification caused by the narrower field of view contributes greatly to the background blur and therefore subject isolation. So no, all those buyers who you imagine might upgrade for this one facet of performance won't be disappointed.
 
Last edited:

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,594
1,913
Hamburg, Germany
but I'd venture to guess that anyone serious about photography would rather have a more open aperture lens and then adjust to narrower apertures as situations present themselves.
There are always things we would rather want. The real question for me is: what are the alternatives? You can't look at something in isolation and say it is good or bad. It may be a bad lens in comparison to others. But the only fair comparison would be zoom lenses with a similar range and price tag (< 500) and weight (< 400). Since clearly, those are the properties this lens was designed for: affordable and compact.

I can't think of any alternative right away, but I don't have a great overview on FF zoom lenses anyway. Are there other lenses with such parameters? In which regards are they better?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

Proscribo

EOS RP
Jan 21, 2015
265
147
1) Depth of field is not a property of the lens alone, it's a property of the lens and sensor size combined.
Actually the only part of the gear that matters for DOF is the aperture size, keep the aperture at 5cm for example and it doesn't matter a bit what focal length or sensor size you have.
 

aj1575

EOS RP
Dec 15, 2010
202
0
I'm not forgetting that, but saying it's an f8 lens is using the crop factor to compare DOF. Unless someone wants to tell me how an f4 lens on MFT is different than any other lens on a different system.

It really is difficult to understand. The lens itself is an f4; but imagine, you mount an EF-S lens on a Full Frame body, you will get heavy vignetting. This is because the lens is designed for a smaller sensor. The focal length compared to what the sensor sees from the same spot is also different.
If you look at the amount of light hitting the sensor while shooting the same picture (with different sensor sizes), than an MFT sensor needs a 2 stops better aperture for the same amount of light hitting the sensor.
 
<-- start Taboola -->