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

[Dragon]

This could be interesting. 105 at f/2.8 theoretically only needs a 37.5mm objective, so the lens size will likely be determined by the retrofocus nature of the short end, but maybe there is a trick to be had there as well given the short flange distance. I am not ready to rule this puppy out so early in the rumor cycle. For reference, have you ever seen a 16mm f/2.8 as small (and inexpensive) as the RF 16?

 

[sanj]

Well, I've regretted selling the RF 24-105mm f/4. Now, f2.8 makes it even more attractive to me.

This is a '1' rumor. Please don't hold your breath...

 

[davidespinosa]

https://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-rumors-rating-system-explained/

 

[Bonich]

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.

Let's focus on the fast 14mm first!

btw:
- I am happy using the adapted EF 35 1.4 II & EF 85 1.4IS
- is there really a need i.e. between the RF 50 1.8 & RF 501.2? If any: I use the Milvus 50mm 2.0 Macro in between, superior IQ in close ups.

 

[Bonich]

This would be my final lens. I love the 28-70 f2 but 28 isn't wide enough when I'm right in front of the stage or trying to get full body shots at close range at events. It's a big enough deal that I still keep my 24-105 f4 if I think I'll need the zoom range, or if I'm doing portraits.

If they ever make this I don't think I'd need a prime lens.

A final lens?

Come on, we are infected by GAS, aren't we?

 

[entoman]

Wouldn't it be great if canon tweaked this a bit with a 24mm to 135mm f2.8 L IS lens announcement/development. Like others, I'm now carrying around an ef 28mm to 70mm f 2.8 and ef 70-200mm lenses with an rf adaptor. If they pushed the zoom range to say 135mm, that might be the perfect lens.

Yes, a RF 24-135mm L would be great, but I'd prefer F4 as it would keep the weight and price much lower, and I rarely, if ever, shoot as open as F2.8. For me to buy such a lens, it would have to focus down to 1:4 scale, and would also have to be razor sharp right into the corners at 24mm.

 

[entoman]

A final lens?

Come on, we are infected by GAS, aren't we?

GAS but not enough DOSH

 

[NKD]

Wouldnt mind this considering I havnt replaced any EF with RF glass yet (except the nifty RF 50)
I'd much prefer internal zoom barrels and sacrifice the 2.8 for f4 !
Alot of money for extendable barrels to loose alignment / sharpness due to lots of use, knocks & travel.

 

[InchMetric]

24-70 2.8 is my most used lens. I'd pay $1000 more than it's used price to bump up to 105 if it wasn't too much heavier.

 

[SpaceGhost]

I assume this lens will be big and expensive but I'd be in line to buy it making it my main lens. Right now, my 24-105 f4 gets used most because the range is most useful range.

 

[chasingrealness]

Like a lot of others here, I would prefer they focus on building out the f/2 zoom lineup. 2.8 is not that interesting to me as a mostly prime shooter, but I could really justify going for a pair of zooms running from 28-135mm at f/2.

 

[Finn]

In my opinion if they were going to do a 24-105 f/2.8 they would have already done it with the launch of RF mount of lenses as it would be a step up in capability seen with the mirrorless mount and be attractive to people switching. Kinda like the 28-70 F/2 did, however the 28-70 F/2 overlaps and everybody loves that lens. Who knows?!

I would love to see a 35-150 f/2.8 or f/2-2.8 (like tamron). Would pair nicely with 14-35 or 15-35. A general purpose L version of a 24-240 or 24-200 or 24-180 at constant f/4 or f/5.6 would be nice. Those kind of lenses are attractive to all kinds of photographers for various reasons as long as they can keep the performance good to very good.

My dream setup for landscapes would be 14-35 (or 15-35), a 50-150 f/2.8, and the 100-500. Overlap at the short telephoto end for flexibility in swapping lenses. I know if I'll be shooting wide in the 14, 24 range with option for a natural 35 FOV. If it calls for a midrange I will at least be using 50mm but sometimes want flexibility to keep one lens on and grab short telephoto at 150. Super telephoto zoom for everything else beyond 150.

 

[Ozarker]

This is a '1' rumor. Please don't hold your breath...

Breathing easy, sir.

 

[t.linn]

This would be an insta-buy for me if it wasn't a 3 lb lens. Honestly, if Canon could simply match Sony's last two zooms (20-70 ƒ/4 and 24-70 ƒ/2.8 II) in size, weight, and IQ, I would be really happy. If those two lenses had existed when I switched back to Canon, I might be shooting Sony now instead.

 

[Skux]

A final lens?

Come on, we are infected by GAS, aren't we?

I have managed to keep my RF kit slimmed down to the essentials. My film gear on the other hand...

 

[Deleted member 393686]

Would it not be nice if there were a 11-22 on the way!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

This could be interesting. 105 at f/2.8 theoretically only needs a 37.5mm objective, so the lens size will likely be determined by the retrofocus nature of the short end, but maybe there is a trick to be had there as well given the short flange distance. I am not ready to rule this puppy out so early in the rumor cycle. For reference, have you ever seen a 16mm f/2.8 as small (and inexpensive) as the RF 16?

While this is true of an SLR design, in the RF world...there is no need for a retro focus design. There is no mirror box and the reart of the lens can come quite close to the sensor / film plane. Canon did devlop an EF version of this lens to quite and advanced stage of prototype. But it can canned due to size and weight. It was nearly the same size and weight as a 70-200 f2.8 and seen by everyone who handled it as a step too far. However...with a mirrorless RF mount it's an entirely different story. In teory, it could have similar dimensions to the existing 24-105 f4 in terms of length but a larger barrel diameter.

Personally speaking, I think a RF 24-105 f2.8 LIS will be a game changer. For versatility and creativity, especially if it's good for half size macro...it's set the wedding photographers world alight. I'd go as far to say that it's probably the only zoom lens in the RF range that is of interest to me. All the others are well covered by their EF counterparts. The versatility of this as a holiday kit along with a 100-400 LIS is impressive.

 

[neuroanatomist]

In teory, it could have similar dimensions to the existing 24-105 f4 in terms of length but a larger barrel diameter.

If so, I’d strongly consider swapping my 24-105/4 for it.

 

[photographer]

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.

I understand Canon's decision to go with the 1.2 lenses because they are so good that they will keep (DSLR) customers and bring in some more. Plus, you don't buy lenses for a year or two. If someone takes pictures of everything and nothing and needs fifteen lenses, it is financially demanding. But if he takes portraits, for example, and 35, 50 and 85 are enough for him, what is the difference in price between 1.2 and 1.4? Two iPhones?

 

[photographer]

Frankly, I do not see a market for this lens. Canon already has the 28-70 mm f2, 24-70 mm f2.8, and 24-105 mm f4 in native RF mounts.

We don't know the dimensions, weight or price, so it's hard to say. If everything is "normal", then it will be successful - travel, street photo, events, ...