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

amorse

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2017
785
1,048
www.instagram.com
Agree in principal that this appears to be a play for small and light, but WTH didn't they go 24-70 f/7.1 and make something truly small? I won't bellyache about f/7.1, but people need to see this lens and go 'Oh, that's why they did that.' Saving 20mm or so doesn't really scream that out to me.

I get that this will be far less expensive than the L (and that's ultimately why this lens is happening), but I think a yet smaller design might move more units.

- A
I think it's going to eventually get mounted on a body cheaper than the RP and potential buyers in their local bestbuy will only see the zoom range and think - "hey, 105 is more than 70. I like doing the zooming, so I should get this one."

I agree 24-70 with a 7.1 would have a size argument in its favour, but if you are making a cheapest possible full frame body with a lens packaged, having that lens go up to 105 may convince some buyers to move over rather than choosing something like an a7ii with a packaged 28-70 (as we all know Sony likes to keep selling their old bodies). Other manufacturers don't really seem to have a zoom range like that for ultra cheap, so this could fill a niche.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
728
483
Not for macro it isn't. Besides, most macro shooters bring ring lights or flashes. Whenever I shoot macro I'm at f8 - f11. The magnification ratio of this lens is not good though, so it will probably be a cheapo beginner one.
You can always get a lens extender. Many macro lenses only go to :5 mag, but extend that to 1:1 with an extender. Otherwise the mechanics get complicated, and more expensive. It’s cheaper to buy an extender if you really need 1:1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

bluediablo

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 23, 2017
86
98
california
Not going to judge.
That's a very commendable response, thank you. After a decade of roaming the sidelines of recreation, club, academy and high school soccer, I met a number of very competent women shooting the kids, they knew their equipment they understood the game and my photography improved from knowing them. I hate this kind of sexist generalization.
 

IWLP

EOS M6 Mark II
Feb 15, 2011
82
19
This lens will be great on the rack at Best Buy.

A bit more zoom than most lens kits that people are used to. Decent macro capability for people who don't understand why their pictures turn out blurry when they get close. A 7.1 aperture for people who don't know what that word means and who will run their cameras in full auto mode and will be happy that they can zoom in a bit more on little Sally or Jimmy running around. Also for keeping DOF reasonable for people who probably don't have the best shot discipline with a FF sensor and wide-aperture lenses to keep everything they want in focus in focus. Those people will be very happy their photos still look better (generally) than their phone photos.

The rest of us here can continue to kvetch about which version of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is sharper.
 

Aaron D

Hey!
Jul 21, 2016
271
263
Kansas City
www.aarondougherty.com
Canon will have 4 normal range zooms, and quite a few people will still be unhappy.
Yeah, I've got the RF 24-105 f/4--it's a wonderful lens. But I'm very likely getting the 24-70 f/2.8 for assignment work, and was imagining this new one taking over travel duties in place of the f/4. It still might. It would be a really small load to drag around all day even compared to the f/4, and I've survived that. And the f/2.8 and f/4 overlap in capabilities more than a 2.8 and this one would......

Not complaining, just thinking out loud.
 

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
603
364
And soccer moms can use EF 70-300mm nano usm for action until there is equivalent version for RF no need buy L 70-200mm
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
Since EF-M can't mount on RF, there is currently no transition pathway to full frame mirrorless from entry level bodies with the same mount (unless you adapt of course). If Canon does indeed plan on creating a full frame body below the RP, this lens might be the right price to create that entry point and transition pathway.


+1, but they need more to pull that off than just an inexpensive 24-105 and 24-240. Slow/inexpensive versions of the UWA zoom, short tele (70 - 300 maybe) and supertele are needed as well.

- A
 

mpb001

EOS 90D
Sep 10, 2016
131
118
At f7.1, the image will look fairly dim. Not only that, a hand held shot even with IS will need fairly high ISO. I don’t think this would make the greatest travel lens. It will be fine on a tripod, but on the long end that 7.1 handicaps this lens IMO.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
I think it's going to eventually get mounted on a body cheaper than the RP and potential buyers in their local bestbuy will only see the zoom range and think - "hey, 105 is more than 70. I like doing the zooming, so I should get this one."

I agree 24-70 with a 7.1 would have a size argument in its favour, but if you are making a cheapest possible full frame body with a lens packaged, having that lens go up to 105 may convince some buyers to move over rather than choosing something like an a7ii with a packaged 28-70 (as we all know Sony likes to keep selling their old bodies). Other manufacturers don't really seem to have a zoom range like that for ultra cheap, so this could fill a niche.


Agree. 24-105s are crowd pleasers and not expensive to make.

But the rumored RF body even less expensive than the RP may lack an EVF and may not be much bigger than a deck of cards. You don't want to bolt something 80-90mm long on to it -- you want something Sony RX1R-ish in aggregate form factor.

So I still think some ultrasmall zooms (fully taking advantage of no longer being married to f/5.6 for AF) are coming -- even smaller than this one.

- A
 

jeffa4444

EOS 5D Mark IV
Feb 28, 2013
1,519
178
67
for that I have a 1000 word demonstration for you. this is taking from our post on the subject over at canonnews and modified just for you ;)

View attachment 188618


Nuff said? The scale is approximate but should be very close. Look at the size of that freaking lens.

/thread.
Sure its bigger but its a 10-1 zoom that weighs 750g (the RF 24-105mm f4L is 700g) and is slightly faster to boot.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
That's a very commendable response, thank you. After a decade of roaming the sidelines of recreation, club, academy and high school soccer, I met a number of very competent women shooting the kids, they knew their equipment they understood the game and my photography improved from knowing them. I hate this kind of sexist generalization.


+1 of course.

So I've added or interchanged 'hockey dads' into my soccer mom statements the last few years. When I've said soccer moms before, the point was never that women somehow uniquely require a simple / low-tech camera (which is a ridiculous notion to hold) -- the point is that some folks just want to take snaps of the fam and not require climbing up the mode dial or discussing gear in forums to do it. One gender does not have a monopoly on that user need.

People love their kids and want to be able to capture them doing things in places that cell phones do not excel -- concerts, sporting events, etc. -- even if they've never owned or used a dedicated camera before. That applies to all genders.

- A
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bluediablo

AJ

EOS RP
Sep 11, 2010
704
120
I'm thinking a price on this of around 200 USD. I line with 55-250 STM and lenses like that.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
I'm thinking a price on this of around 200 USD. I line with 55-250 STM and lenses like that.


I doubt it will be that cheap. Unlike the 55-250, this is an FF image circle lens (crop lenses need less diameter/weight/volume to do the job).

The EF version of this lens (albeit f/5.6) is $599. Perhaps with the f/7.1 long end and smaller size/weight we might be in the $399 to $499 neighborhood.

- A
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

Sharlin

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,359
1,238
Turku, Finland
Love how people are basically claiming that it’s impossible to take photos with an APS-C camera at f/5 or a m43 camera at f/4 max aperture. And that’s before even taking into account the ~7 (!) stops of stabilization you’re apparently going to get with this combined with the new IBIS-equipped bodies!! As long as your subjects aren’t moving, lack of light is not going to be a problem. And if they are, well, push the ISO! That’s what FF sensors are good at.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,265
1,935
Canada
As far as slapping a macro function on the lens goes......

I have the 24-70F4 lens, and it has a macro setting. Flip the switch and twist the zoom and you are now in macro mode. I don’t use it a lot, but every now and then it is very useful. Yes, I have a real macro lens, but it means carrying another chunk of glass..... and that’s the reason why I like this idea for the lens. You end up with a single lens to carry when you go walkabout, no changing lenses, no extra filters, and a lot more convenient.
 

Proscribo

EOS RP
Jan 21, 2015
265
147
Love how people are basically claiming that it’s impossible to take photos with an APS-C camera at f/5 or a m43 camera at f/4 max aperture. And that’s before even taking into account the ~7 (!) stops of stabilization you’re apparently going to get with this combined with the new IBIS-equipped bodies!! As long as your subjects aren’t moving, lack of light is not going to be a problem. And if they are, well, push the ISO! That’s what FF sensors are good at.
You forgot by far the most popular camera: phones. And they're often a lot worse than even this.
 
<-- start Taboola -->