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

[neuroanatomist]

And the noise is more visible in a cropped image.

Well, damn, and here I thought my lunch was going to be free.

 

[usern4cr]

And the noise is more visible in a cropped image.

The loss of resolution is more visible in a cropped image, but I don't know if the actual "noise" is increased.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The loss of resolution is more visible in a cropped image, but I don't know if the actual "noise" is increased.

Not increased, but more visible. The underlying assumption here is that you're comparing apples to apples, in this case that means either downsampling the higher MP image to match the cropped lower MP, upscaling the cropped lower MP image to match the higher MP image, printing them both at the same size, viewing them at the same size on the same display, etc. With any of those, you're applying more enlargement to the cropped image, and that's what results in the deeper DoF and the more visible noise.

 

[SwissFrank]

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).

I remember some two-line comment on a photo forum back in 1995 to that effect. "17-35/2.8, 50/1.4, and 70-200/2.8. That's all you need." Personally I went a different direction, mostly primes, but I always remembered that advice and and it doesn't seem to be wrong. It sounded more fun with a 50/1.4 instead of the current RF1.8, but I've made good arguments why the 1.8 now is as good as the 1.4 in the 1990s was, in every way, even in getting subject to pop out of a cluttered background. I'm intellectually convinced I'm right, but a native 1.4 still sounds more fun.

Like you I really liked the RF24-105/4: the size of the EF MkI but the sharpness of the EF MkII.

My personal wish isn't for a monster heavy highbuck 24-105/2.8, but rather an RF24-105/4 that is as sharp at 100 as the 100-500 is, instead of being what seems like half the resolution. I'd accept it being notably more expensive, or heavier, or both, if that's what it took. I don't need more spec, that's really plenty for most purposes. Since the 24-105 was one of their first-day lenses I hope it's also the first they replace with a MkII. No other lens in the lineup seems to need a MkII. Everything else is either insanely great, or, "pretty good but at such a low price that it probably can't be improved at anywhere near its current price."

 

[1 Fan]

I am still waiting patiently for this rumer to come true.
I am using basically three lenses on my R5: RF 24-105 mm, RF 15-35 mm, and RF 100-500. The 24-105 stays on my camera body most of the time. I recently dropped the camera with the 24-105 attached at the front, the result was not a totally disaster, the lens is still working but I can feel the lens needs serious repair job. My options will be (1) use my EF to RF adapter and my old EF 24-105, or, (2) get a new RF 24-105. So if the f/2.8L is coming out, I will like to get make my option #3.