Is a Canon RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS on the way? [CR1]

[entoman]

THE lens I've been dreaming of.
(Please Canon, make it macro...)

A 24-105mm F2.8 macro would be hideously heavy and cumbersome, not to mention crazy expensive.

Much better (and probably cheaper) to get the RF100mm F2.8 macro, which will take you down to 1.4x scale.
... and to get the 24-105mm F4L for maximum versatility.

That combination will still be cheaper than a 24-105mm L macro (which will clearly have to be a lot more expensive that the existing 24-70mm...

 

[entoman]

I've been looking through my travel pictures to see what kind of focal range would be useful for future trip and apart from dragonflies and birds at 500mm, the overwhelming part of the shots were at a (FF equiv) between 24 and 72mm.

That is an exercise that I'd urge anyone to carry out before they decide to buy a new lens.
It's so easy in Lightroom to check the focal lengths and apertures that we most commonly use.

 

[BroderLund]

I don't see this as super likely given how much overlap it would be with the existing lenses. Personally I'd find a 20-70mm 2.8 lens more appealing. Like what Sony did, but a 2.8, not a 4.
Bit if any new lens I'm looking forward to the wide primes that is rumored for 1H 23 and the AF TS lenses that has been talked about for a long time. Time will tell

 

[scyrene]

A 24-105mm F2.8 macro would be hideously heavy and cumbersome, not to mention crazy expensive.

Much better (and probably cheaper) to get the RF100mm F2.8 macro, which will take you down to 1.4x scale.
... and to get the 24-105mm F4L for maximum versatility.

That combination will still be cheaper than a 24-105mm L macro (which will clearly have to be a lot more expensive that the existing 24-70mm...

Given the size and cost of the 100L macro, why would a zoom going to roughly that at the long end be so much bigger/more expensive? Add a bit on for zoom complexity, but that's a partial guide, no?

 

[mimbu]

This would likely be priced around the same as the 28-70/2L, perhaps slightly higher due to the US. $3199 maybe? Ouch.

 

[vangelismm]

Any wedding photographer with 24-70 and 70-200 would be tempted by a 24-105 2.8 to replace both.
24-105 2.8 paired with the 135mm is not that bad.

 

[Kit.]

Given the size and cost of the 100L macro, why would a zoom going to roughly that at the long end be so much bigger/more expensive?

Because it won't be able to collapse into a 4mm pancake when zoomed back to 24mm.

Which means that the same optical design shall have both telephoto and inverted telephoto parts.

 

[SwissFrank]

The EF 24-105/4L MkI was a good size, but pretty soft. (I had it but switched to something else for discerning shots.) The MkII was substantially sharper, but bigger.

The RF 24-105/4L has the EF MkI size with the MkII image quality. It's quite compelling, but the game has moved on substantially. The 100-500 (at least at 100 and 135 where I've tested it) is modern-prime-lens sharp (if not quite the 100Mac or 135/1.8) and the RF 24-105 is not that good.

I've argued *** that pros now should be using f/4 trinity not f/2.8, but the slight softness of the 24-105 is the one reason I'm wrong in that.

The RF 24-105 has been on sale 4 years or something now, and if any lens would make sense to make a MkII out of it might be this.

Just as with the EF, the MkII could be larger and a little sharper, so the original would continue to be an interesting lens to own and not take a beating in the secondary market.

As a bonus, they might even downgrade the IS in it to be merely nominal or even absent. I think that the lens formula may well be simpler, and/or sharper, and/or lighter or smaller if it didn't have to do IS duty. My own tests of the RF135mm vs. EF135 with IBIS only (see the 135mm SHOOTOUT thread on the lens forum) suggest the in-lens IS may only be bringing 1-1.5 stops, if that.

---

*** In the old days, we needed f/2.8 trinity because:

• Autofocus wouldn't work well with less than f/2.8 (depending on the model, fewer sensors or vertical lines would stop working I recall)

• Viewfinder brightness hinged on f/stop

• we had such soft film images that masked the lost DOF from f/2.8: when even the sharpest details were pretty fuzzy, we couldn't see the loss from DOF un-focus until it was more un-focused

• given a choice between huge grain and a bit of lost DOF from large aperture, we'd have preferred less grain and shallow DOF--or at least preferred the OPTION of choosing it

• without IS and IBIS same story: hand-holding 50mm at ISO 800 and 1/30 and f/2.8 was already pushing it in regular night interiors. Going to 1/15 or ISO 1600 would be abyssmal

• without photoshop etc., if we wanted a subject to pop out of the background we HAD to shoot it that way. There was no post-processing we could easily do.

• and all the above in the context where we could only shoot 36 exposures before serious down-time. That means especially, we couldn't do that 50mm at ISO 800 and 1/15 ten times and assume one would be usable. Not if we wanted to shoot more than about three shots that roll.

So, the trinity zooms were f/2.8 even if that meant we initially had 20-200 coverage instead of greater.

Today all those points are moot or even reversed:

• autofocus and viewfinder brightness have nothing to do with aperture

• sensors are bleeding sharp even at ISO 16000 so bad DOF is in your face

• IS, IBIS let us take 1 sec shots at 135mm with the 100-500 and count on 90% of the shots being fine for less than fine art use.

• the photo as shot is only the beginning of the image; we can edit as much as we want afterwards.

For these reasons, I use and recommend the f/4 trinity. But yeah, the 24-105/4LIS could be a LITTLE sharper...

 

[Del Paso]

A 24-105mm F2.8 macro would be hideously heavy and cumbersome, not to mention crazy expensive.

Much better (and probably cheaper) to get the RF100mm F2.8 macro, which will take you down to 1.4x scale.
... and to get the 24-105mm F4L for maximum versatility.

That combination will still be cheaper than a 24-105mm L macro (which will clearly have to be a lot more expensive that the existing 24-70mm...

I presently own a few macro lenses (Leica 100mm Apo, Leica 60mm, Leica M 90mm, Zeiss 50mm, Canon 100L, Canon 180mm).
What I'm interested in, is a "hiking EDC lens". The idea is to have an excellent multi purpose lens, so I won't have to switch lenses that often. I expressed myself in a ambiguous way, didn't expect the 2,8/24-105 to be a real macro, but rather a lens for occasional close-ups. The main idea was no longer to carry: 24, 28, 35, 50mm Leica M lenses, Canon EF 85mm, but the CR 1 (!!!) mentioned 24-105 plus a 50mm macro, and, of course, some tele gear. So, also 2 instead of 3 bodies (5 D + R, instead of M+5D+R). Even if the 2,8/24-105 becomes quite a brick, it will, I'll save weight.
Switching lenses on narrow mountain paths is fastidious AND risky (for the lenses).
As to the RF 24-105 F.4 L, I own it, but I'm not so enthusiastic about it, when compared to my M lenses. I'd like the new (CR 1 !) 24-105 to be optically in the RF 28-70 F.2 league...

 

[TW]

Maybe just part of Canon’s general policy to offer f4 and f2.8 versions of all their L zooms. Logical if you think of it that way.

 

[Teebaybay]

As unlikely the creation of this lens would be, this would be an immediate preorder due to the versatility of this lens (if they can keep it to the size of the RF 70-200 F2.8 or even smaller) while keeping it under $3200 USD.

 

[GMAX]

Personally, I'm quite happy with the combination of the 28-70/2 when I need a wide aperture and the 24-105/4 when I want something smaller/lighter as a standard zoom.

So do I

 

[Sporgon]

50mm at f/1.8 has about half the depth of field of 70mm at f/4, for the same composition, 70mm will require you to stand

Yes you are right, my mistake. The two have the same DOF at the same distance. I'd misjudged how far you have to move back with the 70 to get same framing.

 

[davidespinosa]

Half the audience:
Forget the 24-105/2.8 -- where's the 24-70/4 ??

Link to EF 24-70/4, for reference:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898652-USA/Canon_6313b002_EF_24_70mm_f_4_0L_IS.html

 

[Frodo]

I loved my EF 24-105/4L and used it for events and hiking.
My first RF 24-205/4L was sharp when I got it, but went unusably soft on the left side. Its replacement was somewhat soft all over.
I replaced it with an RF 24/1.8 and RF 85/2 for a slight increase in weight, significant increase in sharpness, 2 stops wider aperture and 1:2 macro. Just finished hiking 140 km with this gear and very happy. Also a great combo for weddings.

 

[twoheadedboy]

Canon will literally do anything other than make a 28mm f/1.4 (if this is true)

 

[davidespinosa]

I replaced it with an RF 24/1.8 and RF 85/2 for a slight increase in weight, significant increase in sharpness, 2 stops wider aperture and 1:2 macro. Just finished hiking 140 km with this gear and very happy.

Which lenses did you take hiking ?
24/1.8 and 85/2 only ?

 

[domo_p1000]

Yes please, Canon... I would love that lens.
I have always liked to have the versatility of fast glass, but have never bought a fast 24-70 as I find that range a bit too restrictive, and the 24-105 f/4 is slower than I would like.
Were Canon to release this, it would be big, heavy and expensive - but wonderful!!
[... I await the RF body of choice, but when it comes, I would love to add this lens to it.]

 

[jeffa4444]

I own the RF 24-105 mm f4L IS USM and the RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM and recently sold the RF 24-240mm. Just why Canon would produce a 24-105mm f2.8L I’m not sure but I’m unlikely to buy it unless it really does replace the RF 24-105mm f4L and the RF 24-70mm f2.8L by a. Still being relatively compact and b. At a minimum as optically good as the RF 24-70mm f2.8L.
Im really more interested in the RF 35mm f1.4L and hopefully a. RF 85mm f1.4L IS USM. Canon have failed after 5 years to give us a series of f1.4L lenses like we once had in the EF range and my wildest dreams would be a 24, 28, 35, 50, 85 f1.4L along with the RF 135mm f1.8L they would make a great series of primes for video pretty much covering every wish although a fast 14mm would be icing on the cake.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

The 24-105mm F4 L was the first RF lens I bought as it came as a kit-lens with the EOS R. It was my most-used lens until last summer until I kind of have had the feeling "it went soft" and was out of focus several times. After it took an awful 6-8 foot drop on a hardwood floor, I now sent it to CPS for repair. It turns out one lens element was loose (maybe it has been for a longer time...) and they had to adjust it and repair the zoom ring along with. Also, they did some focus adjustment and such and now I am waiting for it to return.

I'll wait and see how the lens performs now. I learned using and loving the RF 14-35mm/ 70-200mm as my travel set-up and it kind of replaced the 24-105mm for it. So, if I don't like it, I might sell it in order to save for/ fund a 28-70mm F2 or something new to play with.

24-105mm is an exceptional useful focal length, but ever since I shot with the 15-35mm (and now 14-35mm instead) I realized the 24-105mm isn't as sharp at all.