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

[Joules]

Canon: *introduces class leading unique and high end lenses*

Commenters: 'We need affordable lenses! This stuff is too huge!'

Canon: *introduces affordable and small lenses*

Commenters: 'Shame! Junk! DOOMED!!!'

 

[Steve Balcombe]

If Canon made an equal performing lens for an APSC body then it would be 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5 – very good parameters for a kit lens, don’t you think?

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!

Regarding the 0.4/0.5x macro which some have declared to be useless - this is actually very good for a macro zoom. Only the EF 24-70/4L beats it (and that has its own problems with focus shift at macro distances). My considerably more expensive Zeiss 100mm f2 Makro-Planar Milvus, which is a prime of course, is also 'only' 0.5x - but I'm greatly looking forward to using it on an R5 (with IBIS!!) later this year!

One issue for this combination of specifications is that focusing at near-macro distances through an f/7.1 lens has traditionally been difficult due to the combination of a dark viewfinder and the focal plane not being clear enough. But this should largely be solved with an EVF.

 

[TonyPM]

f7.1 Is what I use for landscape on one if my cameras. (Apsc with 17-50 2.8).

If it's cheap and does a reasonable job, why not as a kit lens.

 

[Chaitanya]

Great photos!



IIRC, I've read the 100mm f/2.8L doubles as a portraits lens.

Question is who is the target audience for a 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM 0.4-0.5x macro lens. As a walk around lens, e.g. something I'd take to shoot a family event, I think f/7.1 is too slow, and I would rather buy an RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. Maybe it was designed for macro, but not having shot any macro myself, I wouldn't presume to say whether its fit for that purpose or not.

Thanks, this 24-105mm might be full frame equivalent of 18-55m kit lens with added benifit of macro. EF 24-70mm Macro and Sigma 17-70mm Macro are good examples of general purpose lens with decent macro capabilities.

 

[scyrene]

f=7.1is a hard one to swallow.

A cloudy day, and you have to pack and go home.....

Lol have you ever taken photographs before?

Flip that mirror up, stick it on a tripod and stay. This won't be a birders lens, right?

I've shot a significant portion of my bird photographs at f/10 (500 f/4+2x stopped down a touch) and I live in one of the cloudier places in the world, so I wouldn't worry either way

Who shoots landscape and macro at wide apertures? Sure you can but...

On the other hand, I shoot a lot (if not most) of my macro shots wide open, at f/2.8, because it just looks nicer that way (excluding extreme magnification shots with the MP-E). Cluttered backgrounds don't make for nice insect portraits imho!

Anyway, no surprise this spec meets with some negative reaction here, but given the clamour for 'affordable RF lenses', it should come as no surprise. A true kit lens, no doubt very versatile, lightweight and cheapish, will be good for beginners.

 

[uri.raz]

Thanks, this 24-105mm might be full frame equivalent of 18-55m kit lens with added benifit of macro.

For depth of field, f/7.1 on FF is better than f/5.6 on 1.6x crop.

For diffraction, the point isn't sensor size, but rather pixel size. FF pixel size seems to be two steps behind crop pixel size, its a matter of time until f/7.1 would be too small.

For AF, the AF sensor doesn't care about sensor size. f/5.6 will AF faster & better than f/7.1

 

[sulla]

Most, if not all my macro shots are in the f/8-f/11 range, but sometimes a narrower aperture also works. Here's a picture by Jared Polin from his Nikkor Noct 58mm f/0.95 review, it's shot at f/1.2:View attachment 188614

wonderful shot. But it isn't exactly a macro photo, is it?

 

[ved112dei]

Any news on EOS R5 announcement, as per canon rumours date is 13 Feb or is it to be announced around CP+ ?

 

[BillB]

This lens may show that Canon is not going to make an APSC R body. Which would be great but I’m worried that the majority of people believe that an f/2.8 lens for APSC is better than f/4 lens for FF (which is not). Therefore they’d prefer other brands APSC’s

As far as exposure is concerned f2.8 on an APS-C lens is the same as f2.8 on a FF lens and 4.0 on a FF lens is the same as 4.0 on an aps-c lens. So, for exposure, f7.1 on the 24-105 will be 2/3 of a stop slower than F5.6 on an aps-c.

 

[SUNDOG04]

I am still using my 6D and for my mid-range I use an ancient piece of old junk...a 50 compact macro. Compact, and sharp for landscape. Canon has never come out with a replacement 50mm that interested me including the 24-70s. Nor do I want three zooms in my bag. Should I go to mirrorless I would continue using this lens because I still see nothing I would want to replace it with. Especially this lens! For the lack of a good and affordable 50mm lens I would consider going with Nikon. For all their lack of lenses, at least they do have a good 50mm lens, even if over-priced. Canon is coming out with a fine line of RF lenses, and it will be interesting to see what if any thing they do with a 50mm, and I don’t me the phenomenal RF50 f1.2, way overkill for landscape use, at least for me.

I am sure the new 24-105 is a fine lens for many users, just not one I would want.

 

[Joules]

As far as exposure is concerned f2.8 on an APS-C lens is the same as f2.8 on a FF lens and 4.0 on a FF lens is the same as 4.0 on an aps-c lens. So, for exposure, f7.1 on the 24-105 will be 2/3 of a stop slower than F5.6 on an aps-c.

The result is what matters though, not the exposure settings required to get it.

A FF sensor collects 2.56 times as much light as an APS-C sensor. So if you take an image on FF and one on APS-C, both with the same framing and exposure setting, you'll see a bit over 1 stop less noise in the FF image. Which is why saying a f/7.1 lens on FF is horrible is silly, because that's still more light than you get at f/5.6 on APS-C and that's what the vast majority of people use.

I see this lens as a sign that Canon is indeed planning to push FF down in price to the point where it replaces the higher end APS-C bodies.

 

[Avenger 2.0]

Will be waiting for the one point twenty-one version. Want to capture that moment when the lightning strikes

 

[Kit.]

I see this lens as a sign that Canon is indeed planning to push FF down in price to the point where it replaces the higher end APS-C bodies.

I still don't see how this is better than, say, G5X II with DPAF would have been.

 

[jeffa4444]

Canon now has;

RF 24-70 F2.8
RF 28-70 F2.0
RF 24-105 F4.0
RF 24-105 F4-7.1

If one of them doesn't meet your needs, surely there's one that does already - in a mount that is less than two years old.

F7.1 means a lot of ISO 6400 shooting. So what? in most cases: any modern Canon sensor produces ISO 6400 images that are more than adequate for the average consumer.

I've shot a lot with the M's and yes, you do a lot F6.3 shooting. I didn't;

a) go home when it was cloudy
b) stop shooting when the sun went down
c) shake with fear at the thought of shooting indoors.

and this is what? 1/3 - 2/3's of a stop better than the M's running at F/6.3?

While sure, you can't get 100% blowups from F7.1 and ISO 6400 - you can get more than good enough images though.

You missed one out.

Canon already has the RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM so why make a RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 IS USM? This lens I have and its an "OK" walk around lens if you only want to take one lens. It does heavily vignette at the wide end but in most situations is correctable in Lightroom. Not the best piece of optics from Canon but then at £ 799.00 it was never going to be. On the other hand the RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM is a step-up from the EF version and optically quite good. All comes down to your budget, no such thing as a free lunch!

 

[slclick]

People will crank up the ISO.

I was thinking more about doing portraits at 105mm... it could be hard to teach people about DOF with such aperture.

It would be hard to teach surgery with a pair of Vise Grips.

 

[slclick]

Do Rebel soccer moms need full frame?

That's not up to us.

 

[PerKr]

4-7.1 on FF might well be better than 3.5-5.6 on APS-C if we are talking equivalent aperture in terms of depth of field and image noise. But who really uses an 18-55/3.5-5.6 or 24-105/4-7.1 and then worries about depth of field? Or indeed image noise? let alone "equivalent aperture"? It's going to be the next 18-55/3.5-5.6; a lens most have but nobody really wants and one that everyone will advice you to upgrade from as soon as possible. The one positive I suppose will be the price.

 

[Pape]

For focus stacking(macro) photographers do use dedicated lenses while this RF 24-105mm is a lens for the occasions when carrying macro lens is not an option. I can see this as a good lens for travelling with decent macro capabilities covering enviornment(24mm) to closeups(105mm).

macro photographers use macro rails with tripod . dedicated macro lenses got all some focus breathing what isnt optimal for focus stacking . This new zoom should be better with that problem i hope.

 

[JustUs7]

Do Rebel soccer moms need full frame?

It’s not about need. It’s about disposable income. Around here, soccer moms have it and like to take pictures of their kiddos.

As a rank amateur, my issue with this lens is that I see the reach as just enough to capture my kids in the school play or orchestra concert. At 7.1, I’d have to crank up the ISO to get decent exposure, but I’m guessing shutter speed would be attempted as well, which would result in frustration attempting to capture decent images while kids are moving on stage.

I think it could be used to take good pictures, but one should know a little bit about settings to get them. I say this as someone who’s come back from events disappointed with picture results.

Cost no object and knowing what I know now, I’d get the RF 70-200 2.8 for such occasions (and indoor soccer games). But five kids gotta eat, or they won’t be around to take pictures of.

 

[hoodlum]

Well f8 would be one stop darker than 5.6. So 7.1 is about half a stop? It ("7.1") looks bad but seems to be not much difference to the typical 5.6...

It is exactly 2/3 stop darker than f5.6, so 1/3 stop brighter than f8. It would be similar to f4 with m43