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

[Traveler]

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.

There’s one more thing you can change. The ISO.

Full Frame: 105mm, f7.1, 1/100s, ISO=250
APSC: 65mm, f4.4, 1/100s, ISO=100

both will produce an equal angle of view, equal depth of field, equal exposure and even equal amount of noise on same generation sensors.
The lenses would be probably even very similar in weights and sizes.

The main difference between FF and APSC is actually the availability of native lenses.
And ISO.

 

[MDM@ canon rumors]

could be a pretty low profile and creative lens with that small bite of "macro"
Nice 4 holidays.

 

[JustUs7]

Pretty hard to shoot macro at 2.8 unless your focus staking.

I did my first focus stack with the RP and DPP. Mounted on a tripod. Used the 35mm 1.8 set to 2.8 I believe. Took 20 images. No rails. Made an 8x10 for my wife for Valentine’s Day. Not pro quality, but I’m happy with it for a first attempt.

I think I know what to fix. Point is, the RP makes focus stacking almost easy from a tripod.

 

[Architect1776]

That's not up to us.

Do they know the difference?

 

[telemaque]

The specs is one thing. Obviously those f 4-7.1 are not really exciting ones... f 7.1 is not going to make us run to the shop when official arrival is announced. But let's wait to use and see the image quality. With my first body, Canon 350D, I had a 28-135mm that also was not very promising and at the end the quality is much more than decent in a very light and compact lens.

And this was my entry into Canon's world, where now I have bought several L lenses. Last example, the 35mm IS f2 is a FABULOUS lens, people say it is not a L one...Who cares? The image quality is absolutely great and IS very welcome. Here I recommend to wait and see the real pictures people are going to get with it. The real GOOD NEWS here is that Canon has decided to be serious in mirrorless world and new bodies and lenses are in the pipe. This lens seems to be an entry lens. Well it might convince young people, alike me some 20 years ago, to join Canon's environment.

I have been complaining about the lack of reaction of Canon during the last years, so I am today happy to see Canon has heard the message. Honestly, in the coming months if R5 or R6 have serious video quality image and well thought video menu I will be the most satisfied customer on earth. So let's see the image quality of this lens before being unhappy about it.

 

[ahsanford]

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!!!'

Perfect. This is the point I was trying to make earlier.

Just wait until solid / small / inexpensive non-L primes shows up at 'just' f/2.8. Or that the superzoom -600mm everyone has been screaming for gets this f/7.1 treatment. Folks will meltdown.

- A

 

[TMACIOSZEK]

This sounds like a horrible idea. Unless it's filthy cheap, I can't imagine anyone that would want such a narrow aperture lens when so many other options are already available.

 

[Quackator]

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

Nope, but it isn't an allrounder kit lens as well.
Cameras will crank up Auto-NoISO (pun intended) or pop up
built-in flashes. People will still show movement as long as
they are alive, and the use of this lens is rather limited than allround.

 

[slclick]

Do they know the difference?

Not going to judge.

 

[ahsanford]

Regarding the 0.4/0.5x macro which some have declared to be useless - this is actually very good for a macro zoom.

Working distance will be important. If the 24-70 f/4L IS had a macro mode at 70mm that needed to be within (foggy memory, I'm estimating) 6" or so of the subject, get ready for shading the hell out of your subject with the lens at 24mm!

Even Canon's own press shots shows how 'neato while impractical' the macro mode may be with this thing on the wide end.

​

As I said, I love my EF 24-70 f/4L IS macro mode, but not like the above. I'm guessing 0.4x @ 105 will get much much much more use than 0.5x at 24mm with this new lens.

- A

 

[Richard CR]

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?

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




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

/thread.

 

[ahsanford]

The specs is one thing. Obviously those f 4-7.1 are not really exciting ones... f 7.1 is not going to make us run to the shop when official arrival is announced. But let's wait to use and see the image quality.

But we'll see the price before the IQ, and I think that's the ball game with this lens. If this thing sneaks in around $399, folks will be pretty pumped. If it's $599 like the EF non-L version, folks will be less excited (and possibly consider adapting the EF for reasons I mentioned earlier).

I'm guessing that this will be in the $499 neighborhood, but I could be wrong.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

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 188616

Nuff said?

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

 

[Kit.]

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.

So, this is a lens that makes the L lens look pretty reasonable?

 

[Richard CR]

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

It's not just 20mm of savings. it's around 350g as well, and most likely a pretty dramatic price difference between a $1100 L lens and this one.

probably marketing I suspect - people wanting a wider zoom range especially with smartphones getting larger zoom ranges? maybe?

to be honest - this lens isn't meant for anyone in these forums. I'm not sure why the people in these forums are even complaining about it.

Canon will always cater to the beginners and the entry level - whether we like it or not.

I don't think Canon is worried about selling this lens solo - they needed something to package in with the RF kits.

Canon has already stated there will be cameras under the RP. It doesn't make sense to have a camera selling for $800 and packaging it with either a $800 24-240 or a $1100 24-104L. They needed a cheap $399 or whatever price this lens is at that they can bundle in economically.

 

[Act444]

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.

I’ve used the 100L Macro for exactly that purpose and it’s surprisingly good. F2.8 is ideal balance between adequate DOF and good subject/background separation at that FL. The only drawback is the amount of working space required if you want to go wider than half-body perspective.

As for this new lens, I’ll reserve full judgment until I see samples and get to test one in person. I will say that I like how compact it appears to be, but I don’t know if I could mentally overcome f7.1 (!!) as a limitation - even for travel use. Perhaps if it went to 300mm or longer...

 

[Proscribo]

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.

Because 24-70mm is a boring zoom range?

 

[Jasonmc89]

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.

I hear ya. Don’t think high iso noise will bother the average Rebel soccer mom to be honest.

 

[amorse]

It's not just 20mm of savings. it's around 350g as well, and most likely a pretty dramatic price difference between a $1100 L lens and this one.

probably marketing I suspect - people wanting a wider zoom range especially with smartphones getting larger zoom ranges? maybe?

to be honest - this lens isn't meant for anyone in these forums. I'm not sure why the people in these forums are even complaining about it.

Canon will always cater to the beginners and the entry level - whether we like it or not.

I don't think Canon is worried about selling this lens solo - they needed something to package in with the RF kits.

Canon has already stated there will be cameras under the RP. It doesn't make sense to have a camera selling for $800 and packaging it with either a $800 24-240 or a $1100 24-104L. They needed a cheap $399 or whatever price this lens is at that they can bundle in economically.

Absolutely agreed.

Many people transitioned from family shooting with an EF-S body on a rebel kit upwards to eventually getting a full frame body with expensive lenses - that upgrade path was likely instrumental to moving people up-market.

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.

 

[BillB]

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

Canon seems to have fallen in love with 24-105 as the range for basic consumer normal zooms. I guess they have the marketing numbers to back it up. Being Canon, they seem unfazed by Nikon's 24-120. Apparently Canon thinks the good magic number 105 trumps the not so good magic number 7.1.