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

[ahsanford]

It just doesn't seem logical for Canon. They saw complaints online "there are no affordable lenses for RF!" so they went "Okay, here we go $300 24-105 f7.1!" Nobody is going to want it. It seems like an ill-advised reactionary move that I would expect more from Sony than Canon. A 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 for $300 would've made much more sense.

I don't see this as Canon giving up on fast/pro glass or anything. This isn't a platform-level course correction -- it's one flipping lens.

• They need fast pro glass. They have made some and they will make some more.
• They need smaller lenses for those who don't want to lug a big aggregate platform around. They will make some.
• They need inexpensive lenses to draw people into the system. They will make some.

It's not only possible but expected (given Canon's prior modus operandi) to offer multiple price points and levels of glass. Committing some development towards one of those lanes above doesn't mean Canon is abandoning the other.

Perhaps Canon is trying to straddle groups 2 and 3 above with these slower-than-f/5.6 offerings. Or maybe it is just building up a small and light line of non-L lenses and more f/4 or f/5.6 standard zooms are coming later. We'll find out.

- A

 

[David_E]

Well you should certainly sell all your digital camera equipment and just use your cell phone. Good luck with that.

Do you see the world as only black or white? Can you envision a world in which iPhone and interchangeable-lens digital cameras both exist? Because that's the way it is, so you might as well get over it. The main difference is that while sales of dedicated digital cameras are declining, the number of iPhone cameras in use is approaching one billion.

 

[TMACIOSZEK]

Do you see the world as only black or white? Can you envision a world in which iPhone and interchangeable-lens digital cameras both exist? Because that's the way it is, so you might as well get over it. The main difference is that while sales of dedicated digital cameras are declining, the number of iPhone cameras in use is approaching one billion.

I see the world as dreamers and realists. Sure, we'd ALL love to not have to lug around 40lbs of gear for shoots and just use our cell phones, are you kidding me? That would be a dream come true. But I live in reality. You're thinking small potatoes with just consumers. I'm talking about serious shooters that actually get paid. And again I repeat, if you love your cell phone camera that much... do sell all your digital gear, it's clearly a waste of your money.

 

[ahsanford]

Do you see the world as only black or white? Can you envision a world in which iPhone and interchangeable-lens digital cameras both exist? Because that's the way it is, so you might as well get over it. The main difference is that while sales of dedicated digital cameras are declining, the number of iPhone cameras in use is approaching one billion.

No one's refuting trends or numbers. Cell phones are great, sure. No one is saying they should go away.

I think some of us are just commenting that someone saying a full-frame f/7.1 lens is a joke 'because my cell phone has f/1.8' is not a great take.

- A

 

[ExodistPhotography]

f/7.1 Wow.. Only way I would consider this lens is if it was razor sharp wide open.. But I highly doubt it..

 

[David_E]

Cell phones take lovely pictures. They absolutely are a threat to general consumer-grade dedicated cameras, sure.

But even an aging 5D2 with a nifty fifty would mop the floor with a modern cell phone as far as stills go.

That 'quick' f/1.8 or f/2 cell phone lens you referenced scales to something horrific in FF terms, like f/10 or narrower for DOF equivalence. Such an instrument is (effectively) always shooting stopped down compared to the FF shooting experience. In comparison, even this thread's 'embarrassment' of an f/7.1 lens on an RF mount body would give better subject isolation than your cell phone, focus faster, will work far better in low light, it will be more responsive, etc.

Cell phones are great, but they simply can't do all the things the larger sensored platforms can (other than go more places with you).

- A

Cell phones are great, but they simply can't do all the things the larger sensored platforms can (other than go more places with you).

That last paragraph is about the only part you got right. It would also be correct to say Cell phones are great, and they can do many of the things the larger sensored platforms can do, with the added advantage that they can go more places with you.

 

[YuengLinger]

You'd really need a wide open mind to appreciate this lens!

 

[Don Haines]

I see the world as dreamers and realists. Sure, we'd ALL love to not have to lug around 40lbs of gear for shoots and just use our cell phones, are you kidding me? That would be a dream come true. But I live in reality. You're thinking small potatoes with just consumers. I'm talking about serious shooters that actually get paid. And again I repeat, if you love your cell phone camera that much... do sell all your digital gear, it's clearly a waste of your money.

It’s the consumers that are the vast bulk of sales. Canon WILL go after that market

 

[Jethro]

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.

View attachment 188615​

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

The 24-70 f/4L goes into dedicated macro mode after 70mm, and I don't have the specs with me, but in practice it focuses a couple of feet away. It's a great little macro lens. That's why I was saying earlier that while the macro mode on the new lens will be 'handy', it won't be in the same league.

 

[scyrene]

I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about the potential customer base for this lens.

It just doesn't seem logical for Canon. They saw complaints online "there are no affordable lenses for RF!" so they went "Okay, here we go $300 24-105 f7.1!" Nobody is going to want it. It seems like an ill-advised reactionary move that I would expect more from Sony than Canon. A 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 for $300 would've made much more sense.

I would think they'd know more about what lenses sell, what with having sold over a hundred million lenses.

 

[Travel_Photographer]

Let's also keep in mind that it's not an F7.1 lens. It's a variable aperture lens with an F7.1 max aperture at some point in the zoom range, that we currently have no idea where that is.

If the lens is F4 from 24 -50mm, F5.6 though 70mm, and only gets into the narrower apertures at the higher focal lengths, that might make a big difference in the usability complaints.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

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.

View attachment 188615​

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

The long end will be more useful, no question about it, but it's nice to have the choice. Wide angle environmental macro shots of bugs and flowers can be great.

 

[ahsanford]

The 24-70 f/4L goes into dedicated macro mode after 70mm, and I don't have the specs with me, but in practice it focuses a couple of feet away. It's a great little macro lens. That's why I was saying earlier that while the macro mode on the new lens will be 'handy', it won't be in the same league.

At 70mm but not in the macro mode, you are correct. A rough check just now could achieve focus at (eyeballing it) perhaps 9" in front of the lens front element / 15" from the sensor plane.

But in the macro mode, it's a very different ballgame. From TDP on the 24-70 f/4L IS:

As the lens is zoomed to ~80mm (again, not really 80mm), minimum focusing distance reduces to 7.87" (200mm). Since MFD is measured from the imaging sensor plane, the working distance (WD) is considerably less. At 7.87" (200mm), there is about 1.2" (30mm) of WD remaining between the front lens element and the subject. Forget using the lens hood – it is longer than the WD – and lighting within the small opening between the lens and the subject becomes a challenge.​

​

Take a real-world attempt here the court jester himself (tee it up at 7:12)

...but with the caveat that it's only for max mag 0.7x action. It will still resolve AF a bit further away. A quick check here in the house on my 5D3 could get the AF to resolve at perhaps 6" from the front element if I didn't want to chase the max mag.

- A

 

[gouldopfl]

Macro shooters: could this lens replace other lenses in your kit, or is the magnification too low?

Not likely. With Macro depending on what I am shooting F8-F32 is more my range. I also bracket a lot of shots to get a better depth of field

 

[ahsanford]

The long end will be more useful, no question about it, but it's nice to have the choice. Wide angle environmental macro shots of bugs and flowers can be great.

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

 

[Jethro]

At 70mm but not in the macro mode, you are correct. A rough check just now could achieve focus at (eyeballing it) perhaps 9" in front of the lens front element / 15" from the sensor plane.

But in the macro mode, it's a very different ballgame. From TDP on the 24-70 f/4L IS:

As the lens is zoomed to ~80mm (again, not really 80mm), minimum focusing distance reduces to 7.87" (200mm). Since MFD is measured from the imaging sensor plane, the working distance (WD) is considerably less. At 7.87" (200mm), there is about 1.2" (30mm) of WD remaining between the front lens element and the subject. Forget using the lens hood – it is longer than the WD – and lighting within the small opening between the lens and the subject becomes a challenge.​

​

Take a real-world attempt here the court jester himself (tee it up at 7:12)

...but with the caveat that it's only for max mag 0.7x action. It will still resolve AF a bit further away. A quick check here in the house on my 5D3 could get the AF to resolve at perhaps 6" from the front element if I didn't want to chase the max mag.

- A

Hmmm - I think that to get the maximum 70% macro - I'm sure 6 inches is right - but in macro mode I can resolve focus way further back than that (obviously with <70% fill). That's what I meant.

 

[ashmadux]

AGAIN.


EEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

wtf kind if trash aperture is that? Your going to be taking pics at iso 8000++ in the early evening to compensate for this trash aperature.

Just terrible.

 

[ashmadux]

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.

And?

It's still a joke of an aperature. Even for a budget lens.

In some countries, they eat dogs and others eat grilled rat.

The point? Just because they do that, it's doesn't make it 'acceptable'. caps only for super emphasis.

 

[ahsanford]

wtf kind if trash aperture is that? Your going to be taking pics at iso 8000++ in the early evening to compensate for this trash aperature.

f/7.1 sure isn't sexy, but the new platform has other tricks up its sleeve that might make it worthwhile.

Let's say you were shooting a static subject wide open at 105mm on an SLR with an EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM that requires ISO 8000 to properly expose.

This new lens on the future RF body will be:

• 2/3 of a stop slower than f/5.6
• 4 stops faster via IBIS

Net of 3-1/3 stops quicker, so the mirrorless shooter can get away with ISO 800. The quicker EF lens is up in noiseville while this clunker of a budget RF lens is living comfortably where the sensor performs better.

- A

 

[BillB]

AGAIN.


EEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

wtf kind if trash aperture is that? Your going to be taking pics at iso 8000++ in the early evening to compensate for this trash aperature.

Just terrible.

So f7.1 is a trash aperture and f5.6 isn't?