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

[Jasonmc89]

Why on earth would Canon make an f7.1 lens..?

Not exactly an 11-85mm or anything crazy. Pretty standard FL.

Not sure about this one.

 

[slclick]

I do sometimes. Sometimes having absolutely everything in the frame be tack sharp is not what you're going for...

View attachment 188609

Wait...but then you have created ART! Yep, going there. I know what you mean KLJ, I break more photo 'rules' than I keep. In fact (shhhhh) when shooting macro at narrow apertures I almost always take a shot or three at wide open of the same shot, just for kicks. Gotta love that melty OOF

 

[Laslen]

Wow people don't seem to have a grip on reality tonight. f/7.1, that's only good for a paper weight, a rebel user, ignorant new entrants customers, batting practice...... seriously folks, need to go home if the clouds come out!? Talk to the people that have spent 3k to mount a 100-400 on a 1.4x and shoot at f/8, or a 2x at f/11. Lots of people shooting sports and wildlife with those combinations and quite happy with the results when a 10k option isn't an option - but they (me) must be ignorant for being happy with these results.

Tone it down a little bit. You have to be fanboying hard to spin f7.1 as a good lens. Shooting 560mm at f8 is a lot different than 105mm at f7.1.

It'll be cheap and good enough for the current Rebel soccer mom crowd. That's it.

 

[BillB]

I would much prefer f/4-5.6 and NO macro. But, you know.

There is the 24-105 f4, so it really comes down to what you want to spend. Canon will have 4 normal range zooms, and quite a few people will still be unhappy.

 

[slclick]

Tone it down a little bit. You have to be fanboying hard to spin f7.1 as a good lens. Shooting 560mm at f8 is a lot different than 105mm at f7.1.

It'll be cheap and good enough for the current Rebel soccer mom crowd. That's it.

I think you missed his/her point and just contributed to what they were conveying. In a nutshell... pigeonholing, name calling, demeaning posts. The poster wasn't being a snowflake, I took it as taking the high road, a trait uncommon in our rude world.

 

[twoheadedboy]

Wow people don't seem to have a grip on reality tonight. f/7.1, that's only good for a paper weight, a rebel user, ignorant new entrants customers, batting practice...... seriously folks, need to go home if the clouds come out!? Talk to the people that have spent 3k to mount a 100-400 on a 1.4x and shoot at f/8, or a 2x at f/11. Lots of people shooting sports and wildlife with those combinations and quite happy with the results when a 10k option isn't an option - but they (me) must be ignorant for being happy with these results.

If the price is right, the lens small, and image quality decent, this lens will make a lot of people happy.

Yeah whatever happened to f/8 and be there?

 

[Laslen]

I think you missed his/her point and just contributed to what they were conveying. In a nutshell... pigeonholing, name calling, demeaning posts. The poster wasn't being a snowflake, I took it as taking the high road, a trait uncommon in our rude world.

Is there something negative about being a soccer mom? It wasn't meant as an insult.

 

[amorse]

To me that implies a very low cost lens - something you may package with a lower cost body. Maybe they do have an entry level mirrorless full frame in the works? Otherwise, why not use a 3.5-5.6 like EF as the cheaper version?

 

[slclick]

Is there something negative about being a soccer mom? It wasn't meant as an insult.

I guess not, on reading your post I googled the term, acknowledged my age for some strange reason and found quite a long list of internet content devoted to their exploits!

 

[bluenoser1993]

I think you missed his/her point and just contributed to what they were conveying. In a nutshell... pigeonholing, name calling, demeaning posts. The poster wasn't being a snowflake, I took it as taking the high road, a trait uncommon in our rude world.

Thanks slclick, exactly the point. Not likely that I will ever own this lens, but even less likely that I will ever belittle someone I see using it, or a rebel for that matter. Laslen makes one good point though, shooting 560mm at f8 is indeed a lot different than 105mm at f7.1, it requires quite a bit more shutter speed to shoot hand held. Sorry, couldn't resist that.

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

Wait...but then you have created ART! Yep, going there. I know what you mean KLJ, I break more photo 'rules' than I keep. In fact (shhhhh) when shooting macro at narrow apertures I almost always take a shot or three at wide open of the same shot, just for kicks. Gotta love that melty OOF

Rules are great when you're learning to use a camera and/or learning what's going to look good and what's not. But when you know how your camera works, and you know what's going to look nice and what isn't, then rules are silly. It's just artificially limiting yourself.

 

[ritholtz]

Interested to know when it passes f/5.6, wouldn't be too bad as a walk around lens if 70mm(or even 50mm) is still 5.6 and it's effectively a 24-70 f/4-5.6 with some bonus reach.

Canon EFM 18-150mm lens reaches f/6.3 by 40mm. It is f/6.3 between 40-150mm lens. It is as slow as typical 15-45mm kit lens. Canon prioritizes size over everything for M lens. This R lens seems to be going same way. There won't be R version of 24-70mm f/4 lens. This looks nice touch with RP or other small R camera over M.

 

[Jethro]

Canon EFM 18-150mm lens reaches f/6.3 by the 40mm. It is f/6.3 between 40-150mm lens. It is as slow as typical 15-45mm lot lens. Canon prioritizes size over everything for M lens. This R lens seems to be going same way.

It depends how small it ends up - as an economy lens with that range, small size could be a selling point. Always depending upon the optics being at some level acceptable - but there is a place for small lenses.

 

[Baron_Karza]

Seven point one ! ?

This is good. No need to us a Variable ND filter when shooting pictures of a full Moon.

 

[Chaitanya]

If that reproduction ratio is accurate then I am really curious about this lens's performance.

 

[ritholtz]

It depends how small it ends up - as an economy lens with that range, small size could be a selling point. Always depending upon the optics being at some level acceptable - but there is a place for small lenses.

It can pull some M users into R side. Smaller R camera with this lens should be fine compared to M offerings.

 

[Optics Patent]

I'd have to care rather more about what you said to be offended. I do care about keeping the level of discussion on these threads at a respectful level, and that doesn't (in my opinion) include describing 95% of the photography gear market as ignorant.

It takes a special person to be offended on behalf of others who never asked for the special favor.

 

[Optics Patent]

Tone it down a little bit. You have to be fanboying hard to spin f7.1 as a good lens. Shooting 560mm at f8 is a lot different than 105mm at f7.1.

It'll be cheap and good enough for the current Rebel soccer mom crowd. That's it.

Anyone who buys cheaper gear than me is an ignorant soccer mom. Anyone who buys more expensive gear is a rich jerk.

Do I have that right?

(This place is crawling with some real gems).

 

[Jethro]

It takes a special person to be offended on behalf of others who never asked for the special favor.

OK …

 

[Optics Patent]

Perhaps the Macro is not a design goal but a pleasant byproduct. Marketing team says,"Slap it on there!"

Costs them nothing. Costs the owner only all that focus hunting time, with 3/4 of the focusing range under a foot where 95% never shoot.