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

[Ozarker]

Who are you trying to lure into a relationship here?

Not interested unless you have a boat and your own fishing pole.

 

[photographer]

I used my previous phone for about 12 years. Casio g'zone. I only gave it up because I got notice from my carrier that beginning x date, my phone would not longer work on their system. I paid $150 for this phone and have a 1 gig data plan. It's on wifi at home. I don't use it when I go places. $40/month.

$3k doesn't become less than $3k because it's spread out. It's still $3k, and if bought on credit it may be $7k "spread out".

My old truck is used on the farm and to run to town. My seat is aftermarket new. You got me on the safety.

If I make a long trip (500+ miles) I'd rent a car for AC. So I'm the wrong extremely frugal guy to ask. I am currently 100% off grid. I harvest rainwater. Run a generator when I need power until I can build solar. Septic system. By next spring I'll be raising all my own food. I have no mortgage. I wear clothing until it looks bad. Photography is my single money pit. Well, and catfishing. The whole economy could collapse and I'll be fine. Pandemic taught me that.

"I used my previous phone for about 12 years."
So you're an anomaly. But in a good way! I am not a fan of the American style of "having the latest model of mobile phone, car, ... on a loan or credit card". I currently have a five year old cell phone.

"$3k doesn't become less than $3k because it's spread out. It's still $3k"
My bad english. :-( I thought that giving 3 thousand for a thing that will serve me for 10-15 years and even in ten years will not even be morally obsolete makes more sense to me than spending that kind of money on a camera that will be an old model in three years with a value of one-fifth. Another reason is, I have subjective experience, that there was a bigger shift in the technical quality of the photos when I replaced a cheap lens with an expensive one, than when I replaced a cheap camera with a better one. But if you don't shoot in low light and don't deal with bokeh, it's probably pointless to pay extra for 1.2 aperture.

 

[SteveC]

I thought that giving 3 thousand for a thing that will serve me for 10-15 years and even in ten years will not even be morally obsolete makes more sense to me than spending that kind of money on a camera that will be an old model in three years with a value of one-fifth.

To my mind, that's good logic. You end up paying 3 thousand, to be sure...but much less frequently!

I did just buy a new car...how American of me. But I will almost certainly drive it until it dies of old age. In just a few years it will be an old car and other Americans will wonder why I'm driving such a clunker. (Actually the truth of the matter is a lot of Americans do drive older cars. They're just too doggone expensive to be replacing them every couple of years. You just don't see those Americans in Hollywood productions, at least not as the star of the film.)

 

[Eric Boylan Photo]

This would be absolutely insane for wedding photography… if it doesn't weigh a ton. It will be hard to choose between the 28-70 and the 24-105.

-Eric

 

[danfaz]

This would be absolutely insane for wedding photography… if it doesn't weigh a ton. It will be hard to choose between the 28-70 and the 24-105.

-Eric

Oh, I'd pick this over the 28-70. Extra 4mm on the wide AND 35mm on the long end would trump the f2 (IMO).

 

[Deepboy]

Meanwhile, yesterday I saw that Samyang released a 35-150 f2-2.8 to compete with the equivalent Tamron (the Samyang lens actually seems a sheer copy of the Tamron); lens seems as good, or better, then the Tamron, and cost one third less.

So I'm even more curious to see if Canon is going to release anything similar.

 

[Ozarker]

Meanwhile, yesterday I saw that Samyang released a 35-150 f2-2.8 to compete with the equivalent Tamron (the Samyang lens actually seems a sheer copy of the Tamron); lens seems as good, or better, then the Tamron, and cost one third less.

So I'm even more curious to see if Canon is going to release anything similar.

TBH, I'd prefer a 70-135 (or 150)mm f/2. Tamron and Samyang advertise f/2-2.8, but it won't be sharp wide open. Yes, it works for some, but why advertise an aperture that can't be focused? My comment is about Tamron and Samyang alone. Canon is much more $$$$, but based on my past experience with RF L lenses, they give tack sharp focus at all apertures. My experience is limited to the RF 24-205 f/4, 28-70mm f/2, 50mm f/1.2, and 85mm f/1.2. All sharp wide open. Really, really, really sharp. I do completely understand where you are coming from though. Totally.

 

[photographer]

TBH, I'd prefer a 70-135 (or 150)mm f/2. Tamron and Samyang advertise f/2-2.8, but it won't be sharp wide open. Yes, it works for some, but why advertise an aperture that can't be focused? My comment is about Tamron and Samyang alone. Canon is much more $$$$, but based on my past experience with RF L lenses, they give tack sharp focus at all apertures. My experience is limited to the RF 24-205 f/4, 28-70mm f/2, 50mm f/1.2, and 85mm f/1.2. All sharp wide open. Really, really, really sharp. I do completely understand where you are coming from though. Totally.

I don't know how big the waste is, but I've seen Tamron photos taken at 2.8 and they are sharp. Maybe Canon is doing well to block third parties, as the 35-150 would suit me better than the 70-200 I'm considering now. By the way, Tamron received an award EISA - best product 2022/2023 - zoom lens.

 

[Deepboy]

TBH, I'd prefer a 70-135 (or 150)mm f/2. Tamron and Samyang advertise f/2-2.8, but it won't be sharp wide open. Yes, it works for some, but why advertise an aperture that can't be focused? My comment is about Tamron and Samyang alone. Canon is much more $$$$, but based on my past experience with RF L lenses, they give tack sharp focus at all apertures. My experience is limited to the RF 24-205 f/4, 28-70mm f/2, 50mm f/1.2, and 85mm f/1.2. All sharp wide open. Really, really, really sharp. I do completely understand where you are coming from though. Totally.

The f2-2.8 part I don't consider the f2, first because I always shoot in manual so I don't like lens changing aperture (and so exposure) while zooming, second because from what I read the f2 is kept only at 35mm, and by 40/45mm you're already at f2.2
So I would consider them (and would use, if they were purchasable in RF mount) as f2.8 fixed aperture lenses.
70-135/150 is such a short zoom range; could be interesting for a portrait photographer, because it has all the most relevant focal lengths you would normally use for portrait. But there are so many 70-200 out there already, yeah they are all f2.8 and not f2 (I think there's something like a 50-150 f2 Sigma but I reckon it's only for Aps).

I was looking at the Tamron/Samyang 35-150 (or hoping for a Canon 24/28-105/120 f2.8) as a wedding photographer, so I would ditch two lenses (the 24-70 and the 70-200) to have just one lens to do all the ceremony.
But a supposed Canon f2.8 zoom reaching 105mm or even 120mm would be too short as a do-it-all ceremony lens, can't be a full substitute for the 70-200; but I would gladly sacrifice the 24/28mm to have a 35mm as a starting focal, but gaining the 150mm on them long end will certainly be enough to fill the shoes of the 70-200.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But there are so many 70-200 out there already, yeah they are all f2.8 and not f2 (I think there's something like a 50-150 f2 Sigma but I reckon it's only for Aps).

A 70-130/150 f/2 lens would pair nicely with the RF 28-70/2.

 

[Ozarker]

I don't know how big the waste is, but I've seen Tamron photos taken at 2.8 and they are sharp. Maybe Canon is doing well to block third parties, as the 35-150 would suit me better than the 70-200 I'm considering now. By the way, Tamron received an award EISA - best product 2022/2023 - zoom lens.

Try the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 wide open on a bright day. f/2.8 might be ok. f1.8 is something else altogether. Useless. That's my point. CA like you would not believe. The Tamron 15-30? (Can't remember) was ok at f/2.8. ok, but nothing like a Canon at f/1.2... which is sharper, imo.

 

[Bdbtoys]

I was always a fan of the 24-105/4... but I have the range covered already in multiple 2.8 zooms and can't justify doubling up. However, I just realized something w/ another upcoming lens just posted.

The 24-105/2.8 + 100-300/2.8 + a TC for good measure would make one heck of a 'bare-bones' kit. Ganted it would be spendy... but the thought of leaving the house w/ only 2 lenses covering 24-300 at 2.8 seems attractive.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I was always a fan of the 24-105/4... but I have the range covered already in multiple 2.8 zooms and can't justify doubling up. However, I just realized something w/ another upcoming lens just posted.

The 24-105/2.8 + 100-300/2.8 + a TC for good measure would make one heck of a 'bare-bones' kit. Ganted it would be spendy... but the thought of leaving the house w/ only 2 lenses covering 24-300 at 2.8 seems attractive.

Likewise. I had the RF 24-105/4 with the R, and after getting the R3 and switching to that from the 1D X as my primary camera, replacing my EF 24-70/2.8 II with the RF version (I bought the 28-70/2 instead).

I would be tempted by the 24-105/2.8. Very tempted.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

The RF 24-105mm was my bread and butter lens for three years. Since last summer, I've been hardly using it because I (subjectively) feel the RF 14-35mm and 70-200mm are doing a better job and it is a nice two-lens setup (or three lenses with the nifty-fifty). So I started thinking about selling the 24-105mm F4 L and buying a different "dream lens". I am tempted by the 28-70mm F2, but I'd rather have a 70-140mm (or something similar.) 24-105mm F2.8 sounds very intriguing as well but I believe Canon will change the focal length so it won't "compete" with the 24-105mm F4. I'd love a 35-150mm F2.8 (probably lighter/ smaller/ cheaper than starting at 24mm) and if 135mm would make it lighter and smaller I'd be on board, too.

 

[Deepboy]

A 70-130/150 f/2 lens would pair nicely with the RF 28-70/2.

Yeah, I'll agree to that; but first I would prefer a do-it-all ceremony lens like a 28/35-150ish that could very well be f2.8 fixed, I don't care for the f2-f2-8 like the Tamron/Samyang.

Then, after they give me MY :-D ceremony lens, they can release all the 70-150 f2 they want.

 

[navastronia]

If it really is a RF 24-105 f/2.8 L IS, it would have to cost a lot more than the RF 24-70 f/2.8 L IS in order not to cannibalize that lens. So it would probably another lens over $3,000, which only works on Canon's RF mount. Not sure for whom that would be a good deal. Travel or wedding photographers would love the range, but hate the weight. Portrait photographers would rather buy a prime or the 28-70 f/2, for sports and wildlife photographers it will still be too short.

On the other side the RF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS is not too heavy either. It all depends on if they find a clever new optical formula that allows the lens to be lighter.

If the lens is $3K (or even $3.5K), it would still make sense for event photographers running single camera systems. If you put that lens on an R5, you could shoot full-rez, crop in post, and have images equivalent to 200mm/2.8 at 12MP if you wanted.

 

[usern4cr]

If the lens is $3K (or even $3.5K), it would still make sense for event photographers running single camera systems. If you put that lens on an R5, you could shoot full-rez, crop in post, and have images equivalent to 200mm/2.8 at 12MP if you wanted.

Well, you could crop to an equivalent of 210mm/f5.6 and 11MP. But it would still be a great lens.

 

[navastronia]

Well, you could crop to an equivalent of 210mm/f5.6 and 11MP. But it would still be a great lens.

I estimated 200mm at 12 MP for that reason lol. As far as the f-stop goes, the image will look the same as that taken from 200mm/2.8 in all but resolution. If you don't believe me, try it with your own gear.
EDIT: . . . I'm pretty sure. I haven't tested this kind of thing in a minute.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I estimated 200mm at 12 MP for that reason lol. As far as the f-stop goes, the image will look the same as that taken from 200mm/2.8 in all but resolution. If you don't believe me, try it with your own gear.
EDIT: . . . I'm pretty sure. I haven't tested this kind of thing in a minute.

Strictly speaking, cropping does affect DoF (makes it deeper) so @usern4cr is correct in principle (I didn’t check the actual f/numbers).

 

[Nemorino]

And the noise is more visible in a cropped image.