Patent: Canon RF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
8,438
1,198
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
It was bound to come to the Canon RF lineup, and now we have a patent for a Canon RF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM. This will go well with the upcoming Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.
Canon News uncovered this JPO patent.
Canon RF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM

Focal length: 24.73mm 40.97mm 67.90mm
F Number: 4.12 4.12 4.12
Half angle of view: 41.19° 27.84° 17.67°
Image height: 21.64mm 21.64mm 21.64mm
Total lens length: 145.52mm 135.76mm 160.05mm
BF: 18.00mm 25.64mm 55.54mm
Continue reading...


 

mb66energy

EOS R
Dec 18, 2011
1,444
322
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
As always: It depends on the mix of size, cost, mass, IMAGE QUALITY and MINIMUM FOCUS DISTANCE for me: As stefang remarked, it is a large lens, but if it will provide some 1:3 or 1:2 maximum reproduction ratio at 70mm it might avoid to have a macro lens with you, especially to change lenses in sometimes awkward situations.
For me it will combine well with my EF 70-200 4.0 IS to cover a very lot of situations. Preferably with two bodies (RP + R6?).
For low light you will have RF 1.8 35 macro & RF 2.0 85 macro at a fair price.
The lenses for the "higher end masses" seem to come now!
 
Dec 30, 2019
4
6
I have been wating for this one! I loooove my EF 24-70 F4, and for most of my work the F2.8 is overkill. Im buying this the day of release, my old EF's rubberbands are almost falling off after 5 good years of use (and abuse)!
 

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,139
1,287
Hamburg, Germany
I have been waiting for this lens to replace my EF version, but if those dimensions are correct, this RF version is even longer than the EF version with RF adapter attached....
TDP lists the measured size of the EF 24-70 4.0 L as 101 - 131 mm. So 125 - 155 mm with the adapter (24 mm extra flange). As the RF version is a patent, you have to subtract the flange distance of the RF mount (20 mm) from the given total lens length, resulting in 115 to 140 mm, meaning it is slightly shorter than the EF version.
 

Mike9129

EOS M50
Oct 25, 2019
43
41
I dont understand this lense really.

what is the reason that someone would opt for a 24-70 f4 over the existing 24-105 f4?
Theyre the same category of lens except one has a better reach and is really highly useable.

is the shorter one that much cheaper?
 
Dec 30, 2019
4
6
I dont understand this lense really.

what is the reason that someone would opt for a 24-70 f4 over the existing 24-105 f4?
Theyre the same category of lens except one has a better reach and is really highly useable.

is the shorter one that much cheaper?
My experience is that i don't use that extra reach and therefore prefere the shorter range. And furthermore the 24-70 has a realy nice macro function, that i use alot!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jethro

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,114
303
I dont understand this lense really.

what is the reason that someone would opt for a 24-70 f4 over the existing 24-105 f4?
They're the same category of lens except one has a better reach and is really highly useable.
In the EF mount, the 24-70mm f/4 is $200 cheaper, has 0.7x max magnification* compared to the 24-105mm f/4 mkII's 0.24x, is almost 200g lighter, and is an inch shorter. Apparently those are sufficient advantages to a sufficient number of photographers to keep this lens in production.

The RF lenses might have similar differences.

* I'll skip the 'is this enough to make the lens macro' argument.
 
Last edited:

Mark3794

EOS 90D
Sep 4, 2018
156
462
I dont understand this lense really.

what is the reason that someone would opt for a 24-70 f4 over the existing 24-105 f4?
Theyre the same category of lens except one has a better reach and is really highly useable.

is the shorter one that much cheaper?
You have to try it, it's sharper than the 24-105 and the macro function is really useful
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iain L and jd7

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,357
716
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
I dont understand this lense really.

what is the reason that someone would opt for a 24-70 f4 over the existing 24-105 f4?
Theyre the same category of lens except one has a better reach and is really highly useable.

is the shorter one that much cheaper?
WIth the EF 24-70 vs 24-105, the 24-70 is significantly sharper in my experience. I'd expect similar with the RF lenses even though the RF 24-105 is pretty good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7

stefang

EOS M50
Dec 15, 2014
33
26
TDP lists the measured size of the EF 24-70 4.0 L as 101 - 131 mm. So 125 - 155 mm with the adapter (24 mm extra flange). As the RF version is a patent, you have to subtract the flange distance of the RF mount (20 mm) from the given total lens length, resulting in 115 to 140 mm, meaning it is slightly shorter than the EF version.
Thanks. Didn't know that patents include the flange distance in the total lens lenght.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

Codebunny

EOS R1
Sep 5, 2018
627
605
I dont understand this lense really.

what is the reason that someone would opt for a 24-70 f4 over the existing 24-105 f4?
Theyre the same category of lens except one has a better reach and is really highly useable.

is the shorter one that much cheaper?
The 24-105 is always a worse lens than the 24-70 with more distortion and less sharpness. And the current 24-70 f/4 has a good macro mode and is easy to walk about with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanj

jeffa4444

EOS 5D Mark IV
Feb 28, 2013
1,515
173
66
Ive the EF 24-105 f4L MK1, the EF 24-70mm f4L, the EF 24-70mm f2.8L MKII and the RF 24-105 f4L. The present EF 24-70 f4L is very good at 24mm and 70mm but tends to be softer at 50mm. The EF 24-70mm f2.8L MKII is very good throughout the range with a little pin cushion at one end and barrel at the other easily corrected in photoshop. the RF version of the 24-105mm is way better than either the MK1 or MKII version in EF mount. Canon should be able to deliver a pretty good RF 24-70mm f4L hopefully along the lines of the quality found on the EF 16-35mm f4L but including the macro function.

Landscape shooters would lap up the RF 16-35 f4L, RF 24-70 f4L & the RF 70-200 f4L and hopefully not at the crazy prices charged for the f2.8 lenses. Put these together with the R5 or R6 and you've got a winning combination.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
894
923
I too appreciate the EF 24-70 f4 for its sharpness and macro mode.
What I really hate is the wobbling of the lens tube in the 70 mm non macro position.Mine doesn't feel like an L lens at all. This I had confirmed by testing used ones, they had the same "defects". Yet, it remains a very good lens, it seems the wobbling has no incidence on sharpness.
I did send it to Canon, got it back with an"everything within the tolerances"...
Meanwhile, my EDC lens is the RF 24-105, optically as good, and "non-wobbling".;)
 

StandardLumen

EOS M50
Jul 20, 2020
25
27
I dont understand this lense really.

what is the reason that someone would opt for a 24-70 f4 over the existing 24-105 f4?
Theyre the same category of lens except one has a better reach and is really highly useable.

is the shorter one that much cheaper?
I wouldn't have bought an RF 24-105 if I knew this one might be coming out soon(ish)! The only time I would personally ever use either of these lenses is while traveling. When I'm at home, I use larger lenses, and when I'm traveling I'd rather use the 24-70 over the 24-105 because it is smaller and lighter.
 

juststeve

EOS M50
Nov 29, 2018
45
64
I recently purchased the RF 24-105/4 L for my R5 and am quite pleased with the lens. It is sharper than I expected and very quick to focus on the R cameras. It is a fine lens.

But I got the 24-70/4 L in a bundle with my 7D ii and it quickly became an all time favorite lens, both for its optical quality and compact size. If and when Breakthrough Photo gets its EF-RF filterable adapter system out I will get that and that sweet little 24-70/4 along with my two EF wide angle zooms will probably be my main short lenses on the R5. The filterable adapter for the RF cameras sure make using EF lenses, especially the wider one, attractive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Andy Westwood

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 10, 2016
114
155
UK
I’d be also be extremely interested in this lens; I absolutely love my RF 24-70 2.8, but it pulls my arms off it’s so heavy. Some of my studio shoots can be 10hrs plus and fantastic the 2.8 version is I don’t always need to shoot that wide open.

I did look at the new 24-105 super lightweight and ok as a holiday snapper but I don’t think I would use it for much else other than for light weight travel kit.

Please Canon make the f4 come in at sub 500g if you can and spare our arms
 
Last edited:

thomas2279@hotmail.com

EOS M6 Mark II
Feb 7, 2013
72
16
I have been waiting for this lens to replace my EF version, but if those dimensions are correct, this RF version is even longer than the EF version with RF adapter attached....
This would be an excellent addition (along with the 70-200 F4 ) for Canon's excellent RF ML FF system
 

jdavidse

R5
CR Pro
Sep 13, 2012
103
106
I too appreciate the EF 24-70 f4 for its sharpness and macro mode.
What I really hate is the wobbling of the lens tube in the 70 mm non macro position.Mine doesn't feel like an L lens at all. This I had confirmed by testing used ones, they had the same "defects". Yet, it remains a very good lens, it seems the wobbling has no incidence on sharpness.
I did send it to Canon, got it back with an"everything within the tolerances"...
Meanwhile, my EDC lens is the RF 24-105, optically as good, and "non-wobbling".;)
My RF 24-105 wobbled significantly. So much so that I sold it. I'm not sure I want to buy another one