125mm long, or 4.9 inches. This lens is 32mm longer that the EF version, or 7mm longer than the EF version + adapter. It is the same length as the RF 24-70 2.8. What is the point?
Upvote
0
Read Joules' comment on the first page ...125mm long, or 4.9 inches. This lens is 32mm longer that the EF version, or 7mm longer than the EF version + adapter. It is the same length as the RF 24-70 2.8. What is the point?
Read Joules' comment on the first page ...
It took the measured length for the min and max length from TDP:I did.
Canon USA says the EF 24-70 f/4 is 93mm (3.7 inches)
Add the EF->RF adapter and that's 113mm (4.45 inches)
The RF 24-70 f/4 patent says "Total lens length: 145.52mm 135.76mm 160.05mm"
Adjust for the flange distance (subtract 20mm) that's 125.52, 115.76, 140.05
Assume you took the middle measurement of 115.76 (4.56 inches). That's still a touch longer than the EF 24-70 f/4 w/ the adapter on.
The RF 24-105 f/4 is 107.3 (4.22 inches) long
The RF 24-70 f2.8 is 125.7mm (4.95 inches) long
I was off by 10mm in my earlier post because I took the measurement on the left, assuming that was the retracted length. But assuming it's the middle number of 115mm long, why is it 8mm longer than the 24-105 f/4?
Anyways maybe this patent won't prove to be the final version. But so far, this seems DOA if it's this big.
Smaller size. If there's less reliance on software corrections I will trade my 24-105 for oneI 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?
There were two 24-105/4LIS lenses.
The RF24-105 is excellent. I'm used to shooting a 15-lens EF system but I'm just happy with the RF24-105 any more. It's sharp enough I don't seem to need to switch to a prime to be sharper. The camera's high-enough ISO I don't need a special lens just for candle-light dinner mementos. It's wide enough and long enough. I will grant that when I take it off, it's often to mount the 180mm macro, so maybe 0.7x mag would be nice though.
I understand your sentiment. It boils down to Image quality. Size/Weight etc are not that much of an issue for me.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?
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.
sizeI 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 do not actually see an IS group in the drawings of the patent. Is this really an IS lens?
I was not debating the usefulness of IS in a lens. But the topic of the thread mentions IS, which I suspect is an error.On an R5/R6, any lens is an IS lens In reality, IS is less of a deal breaker on a short lens like this than say a 70-200.
It's smaller and lighter, which is good for things like travel and backpacking if those focal lengths work for you. If not, well, that's why there are other lenses out there.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?
Ive used my RF24-105mm f4L IS USM for quite a few studio shoots now and was really surprised the first time I used it how good it was. Rent one and try yourself.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