The RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z won’t be the last RF PowerZoom lens

[Walrus]

Yeah, Canon did not make EF f/2.8 zooms with IS and I am not about to upgrade all of them to their RF counterparts.

If you need IS then you're totally right to upgrade to IS lenses

 

[koenkooi]

Yeah, Canon did not make EF f/2.8 zooms with IS and I am not about to upgrade all of them to their RF counterparts.

The EF-S 17-55mm IS USM feels sad for being ignored

 

[neuroanatomist]

The EF-S 17-55mm IS USM feels sad for being ignored

As do the three versions of the EF 70-200/2.8L IS, apparently. Or are we only considering 'standard' zooms?

 

[Redline]

Wow...I did not think the cost would be feasible for manufacturers to apply such wide aperture but I guess I was wrong. I wonder if this would change how people look at the 24-70 f/2.8 lens when you gain additional focal length. For once, I\'m honestly excited for a new Canon lens. Price tag I guess justifies it...

 

[photographer]

Because Canon is not manufacturing a specific focal length that I really like, but two other competitors do (35-150).
Because my Sigma 40 f1.4 (yes, 40 not 50) is as good as the Canon L while costing a third of it (actual retail is 750€ brand new from Amazon); see for yourself.

And not going lens per lens, which has no sense, I just prefer third party lenses because they are as good as the Canon for what I do (bride&groom doesn't pixel peep at 200%, they care about emotions, not ultimate sharpness in test charts), if not even better then Canon, while costing usually at least half of them.
So from a business standpoint expensive Canon glass is not a good purchase; other manufacturers do the same stuff for less money, and using a Canon glass vs a Sigma vs a Tamron glass, my daily rate doesn't change, so there's no reason to pay more. If you're an amateur you don't have to justify your gear, if you're a professional you have to. Is as simple as that.

And again, why everybody seems to know exactly what I should need and has to convince me that they know better then me? It's incredible.

Canon doesn't have a 40mm focal length in their portfolio, so it's hard to judge. Similar to the 105 I use and it's amazing. I've had a few Sigma Art lenses myself and they've been perfect. But Canon's RF Ls are even better, albeit much more expensive. I tell myself that I'm buying a lens for at least 10 years and I won't live forever, so I can afford top quality. Of course, buy what you want. It just struck me that you write that you value lenses more than the body, and at the same time you buy lenses from third-party manufacturers.

 

[photographer]

If I hire a professional for lot of money, I expect him to produce a workpiece as good as he advertise, and as good as I saw while searching for the right professional. I don't care if he does it with an iPhone vs a 200mpx Phase/Hassie, or with an iPhone vs a Red/Alexa.

You're a...photographer, as you nickname suggest, so you can tell which camera do I have; but the average customer, even when you work for brands/agency, can't tell the difference between a D30 and an R5.
Photography is about craft, not about gear; then, if the customer thirteen yo daughter has a camera better then the pro, why she's not doing the job for the father? Surely if she has a better camera, she does a better job.

Or not?

I don't agree. Of course, the main thing is the quality of the photos, but the image is also important. Why does a rich man buy a Maserati, even if he doesn't drive fast and a Fiat would be enough for him? Because it shows social status. When he hires a professional chef for a party, he wants the chef to cook well, but also to look like a professional. And if he hires a professional photographer for the same party, he wants him to take great photos and look like a professional. Although nowadays a skilled photographer would take great photos with an iPhone. In addition, when a photographer has equipment for 15,000 euros, it is easier to charge higher prices. And don't be offended - until you understand this game, you'll keep complaining about how expensive Canon lenses are.

 

[David - Sydney]

The best way to make a small fortune in photography, is to start with a large fortune.

or for a photographer to sell all their gear and exit the market

 

[becceric]

Maybe because the relationship between two spouses is nothing like that of a customer and a corporation?

Well, several people I know repeatedly trade “up” on spouses. They don’t realize that they are the “Sony” in the relationship(s).

 

[DhlcadR6]

Had both 20-35 L and 80-200 L, great lenses, especially the latter, I changed to the 70-200 non-IS just because at the time I wanted to use extenders, and have a better MfD for close portraits; probably today I would have kept it, AF was super fast even if it wasn't usm, only downside, shared with 20-35, is that they don't repair it anymore.
Certainly the use of EF lenses on R cameras being easy as they were native lenses (and actually the work better on R than on dslr's), and so the great amount of lens available on the market for any price, it's why I still appreciate Canon so much.

The Arc Form Drive motor is still quicker than modern gear-type STM. And competent optical quality that last for 30+years, yeah that's why I appreciate Canon too. I couldn't enjoy the same with Sony....their 1st gen GM lenses couldn't keep up with latest bodies.

At the current rate, I think the only way to break my legacy EF is to adapt it on the speedbooster with Sony...

 

[Ozarker]

This is one exciting lens! Way to go, Canon!

 

[Hector1970]

What’s the advantage of it. Twisting lens has been the least of my worries. Is it for remote shooting / focusing or what? I can live without but maybe it’s essential for some one else.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What’s the advantage of it. Twisting lens has been the least of my worries. Is it for remote shooting / focusing or what? I can live without but maybe it’s essential for some one else.

Video.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

What’s the advantage of it. Twisting lens has been the least of my worries. Is it for remote shooting / focusing or what? I can live without but maybe it’s essential for some one else.

Smooth zooming for video and also remote zoom.

 

[EricN]

I don’t think we’ll be seeing if white primes from Canon any time soon
The tech and sharpness are already maxxed out. Canon’s only option is to develop them into zooms instead.

I'm not sure about this because it's generally agreed 400 2.8 and 600 f/4 were sharper in the mk ii than iii and rf. Then there has also been the bolt on adapter criticism of those two RF lenses. Am I saying you are wrong? No, I'm just not sure... I think Canon has a lot of choices and they do sometimes give us something unexpected.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I'm not sure about this because it's generally agreed 400 2.8 and 600 f/4 were sharper in the mk ii than iii and rf. Then there has also been the bolt on adapter criticism of those two RF lenses. Am I saying you are wrong? No, I'm just not sure... I think Canon has a lot of choices and they do sometimes give us something unexpected.

I agree, the mkII's were boardly sharper than the mkIII / RF versions...however we are not talking a lot of difference. It's not like a comparision between a EF 400mm f5.6 L and a EF400mm f2.8 LIS experiance. The mkII's a wee bit sharper.
Canon has had the option of upgrading the build for a EF 300mm f2.8 LIS and EF 500mm F4 LIS both to a mk III / RF version. But they ahve chosen not to, because they ahve chosen to pursue the Zoom formula instead. I suspect all of the new White primes will now become White tele zooms.

 

[EricN]

I'm excited to find out what they will do.