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

[P-visie]

View attachment 212774

In a market (eBay, where you can buy across European Union without any extra tax, vat or customs fee between countries) where I could buy an used EF 24-70 f2.8 II L, just serviced by Canon Italy (aperture ensemble was just swapped due to flat cable failure), for just 610€ shipped (lucky shot; its price is usually around 800€), you can very well imagine that the 3.760€ required for the new RF 24-105 are out of reach (and out of sense) for most. See pre-order prices:

Obiettivo Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM Z

Acquista Obiettivo Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM Z online su Canon Italia Store. Scopri le altre fantastiche offerte su tutta la gamma di Obiettivi Zoom. Consegna gratuita su tutti gli ordini a partire da € 30!

store.canon.it

Consider that many small professionals (like me), at least in my country, Italy, have particular tax regulations were you will pay a very low taxation, and invoice without vat (so for B2C my prices are 20% cheaper then a bigger professional/agency), but in return you can't deduct any cost for your business activity.

That means that any purchase is straight out of my pocket, I can't make it a business cost; so that's why 90% of professionals with my tax regulation (not only in photo/video; this is the same for any other business where you need to buy any type of gear/aid, starting from a chair, a desk and a laptop) would almost never buy anything new if they can go on the used market.
And I can tell you that 40/50% of wedding photographer are in the same tax regulation as mine; so yes, price of lenses is a definitive factor for a wedding photographer in my country.

Congratulations with your new lens. I owned this lens and can tell you from my own experience that the EF 24-70mm f2.8 II is a very good lens. You are lucky to get one at such a bargain price.

I do not think it is reasonable to compare the bargain price for a repaired second hand lens (a lens that was introduced in 2012) with the 2023 price of a new lens, which has more features (35mm more reach, IS, aperture ring).

The price of the EF 24-70 mm f2.8 II at the introduction in 2012 was around 2400€. If you adjust that price for inflation (I did not include the high inflation figures for 2022 and 2023 in the calculation), the 2023 price for the EF 24-70mm is around 2700-2750€. The RF 24-70mm f2.8 retails for 2700-2800€ in the Netherlands.

Yes, the RF 24-105mm f2.8 is expensive, but the +/- 700€ difference with both the RF and EF 24-70mm f2.8 can be ‘explained’ by the additional features.

 

[Walrus]

You sound like just another fool who thinks that when a company comes out with a brand new mount, that every lens you could possibly want is already designed and waiting. It takes years to design, and engineer a new lens. And you and others act as if every 3rd party lens will be the one you want. We still don't know what Canon will do in terms of licensing agreements with 3rd parties. Impatient people will whine and complain and possibly switch. Smart people will wait, keep using the lenses they have, or look into the very wide assortment of EF lenses from Canon and 3rd parties. So you do have the choice of using different lenses then Canon offers. Goodness, you are a pro. Act like a pro.

I sound like someone who has given Canon money for the last 24 years, and so it's fully entitled to express his own observations on the brand and gear he uses.

But if you say

Smart people will wait, keep using the lenses they have, or look into the very wide assortment of EF lenses from Canon and 3rd parties

well, I'm waiting, I'm using the lenses I have, and I'm looking and buying in that wide assortment of EF lenses, so I'm definitely smart as you say, thank you very much for pointing that out!

 

[Walrus]

Congratulations with your new lens. I owned this lens and can tell you from my own experience that the EF 24-70mm f2.8 II is a very good lens. You are lucky to get one at such a bargain price.

I do not think it is reasonable to compare the bargain price for a repaired second hand lens (a lens that was introduced in 2012) with the 2023 price of a new lens, which has more features (35mm more reach, IS, aperture ring).

The price of the EF 24-70 mm f2.8 II at the introduction in 2012 was around 2400€. If you adjust that price for inflation (I did not include the high inflation figures for 2022 and 2023 in the calculation), the 2023 price for the EF 24-70mm is around 2700-2750€. The RF 24-70mm f2.8 retails for 2700-2800€ in the Netherlands.

Yes, the RF 24-105mm f2.8 is expensive, but the +/- 700€ difference with both the RF and EF 24-70mm f2.8 can be ‘explained’ by the additional features.

I'll answer you with a video I just watched today:

He's doing examples with bodies (the old 5Ds against R5), but the concept is the same with the lenses: do I want the 24-105? Yes. Can I buy it? Let's say yes. Will it make me more money then the used 600€ old 24-70 II? No, it won't, my daily rate will stay the same (and I say mine; of course if I was an hybrid shooter, maybe I can do different or more work, and the lens may actually bring me more money). So from a business perspective, it's not a good purchase.
Same for the RF 24-70, and the 28-70 (even if this last one can actually change part of my photography thanks to the added brightness, but it's questionable to say that this change would bring me more money); I want them, I can pay for them, but they won't make me any extra money, so there's no sense in upgrade to them if I'm a business. Back then when I was an amateur, everything was justified; now it's not.

Anyway, thanks for the kind answer, it's nice to have a friendly discussion without being called fool or troll

 

[David - Sydney]

Anyway, thanks for the kind answer, it's nice to have a friendly discussion without being called fool or troll

The main issue is that complaining about Canon not providing options that Sony/Nikon can isn't productive - at least in this forum. Jump ship or manage with what is available today is a typical response.

Wishful thinking happens all the time and isn't called out and is a subtle difference. A non-native English speaker can also be overlooked.

You have thought reasonably about your particular usage and for budget/profitability can't justify new or higher end RF lenses. Canon provides choices but maybe not the best choices for you. Selling your Canon gear second hand and buying Sony/Nikon second hand could be an option if you are prepared to learn another system.

 

[Walrus]

Selling your Canon gear second hand and buying Sony/Nikon second hand could be an option if you are prepared to learn another system.

I would rather not do it, I like the Canon bodies system; that's why I just wish we can get third party glass soon

The main issue is that complaining about Canon not providing options that Sony/Nikon can isn't productive - at least in this forum. Jump ship or manage with what is available today is a typical response.

I'm just expressing opinions, don't want to be "productive" or get "answers" no Canon decision makers are here, at least to my knowledge, so of course it would be fool, yes, appealing to them to change something up, and no one here (if it's not a Canon executive) can give me answers.
I just don't understand why people take it personally as someone (not just me) express different needs and opinions; maybe there are no Canon executives, but some Canon stakeholders?
I usually talk, discuss and guess about what's best for me, not for others, I really don't care what others need tbh, nor I would try to teach them what they should desire; so why others would try to teach me what is best for me? I find this quite amusing.

Yeah I'm no native English speaker; I'm sure I often use wrong words, or too literal translations from my language, that don't really apply in English. Still, I feel I have good enough writing skills to be easily understood, and hardly misunderstood; I have a C2 Proficiency qualifications, in my country that's considered as being almost bilingual (even if I'm clearly not; I speak fluently, but less grammatically correct then when I'm writing), so I don't really feel there should be any problem or doubt in communicating with me, at least on a forum.

 

[becceric]

I sound like someone who has given Canon money for the last 24 years, and so it's fully entitled to express his own observations on the brand and gear he uses.

But if you say

well, I'm waiting, I'm using the lenses I have, and I'm looking and buying in that wide assortment of EF lenses, so I'm definitely smart as you say, thank you very much for pointing that out!

Yep. I don’t think you‘re coming off as impatient at all. I feel the “If you don’t like Canon/what they are doing so much, just leave” comments are not furthering the discussion. After 24 years of being a Canon customer, your opinions sound reasonable.

If married that long, then expressing an “I enjoy being with my wife, but I wish she would buy new bed linens more often”, I doubt my friends would say, “just dump her already!”

 

[DhlcadR6]

On the bottom line, Canon is giving these capable RF bodies to give the EF lenses much longer lifespan than competition. However, the lack of cheap bright zoom does scare off the newbies into the dark side of Sony/Gearholics.

Extremely pleased with EF 20-35L and EF80-200 still rocking with my R6 and R50. My dad who used to run them with EOS 10, 5, 100 and 1V couldn't imagine it is possible to still use them on modern cameras after the sabbatical in 20005-2019 where there was not much capable cameras to utilize these ancient EF lenses. I'm still struggling to persuade my dad to rely on AI Servo tracking instead of the AF-S point and recompose technique (that actually will produce blurry result because of modern resolution and bright aperture).

 

[Walrus]

On the bottom line, Canon is giving these capable RF bodies to give the EF lenses much longer lifespan than competition. However, the lack of cheap bright zoom does scare off the newbies into the dark side of Sony/Gearholics.

Extremely pleased with EF 20-35L and EF80-200 still rocking with my R6 and R50. My dad who used to run them with EOS 10, 5, 100 and 1V couldn't imagine it is possible to still use them on modern cameras after the sabbatical in 20005-2019 where there was not much capable cameras to utilize these ancient EF lenses. I'm still struggling to persuade my dad to rely on AI Servo tracking instead of the AF-S point and recompose technique (that actually will produce blurry result because of modern resolution and bright aperture).

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.

 

[P-visie]

I'll answer you with a video I just watched today:

He's doing examples with bodies (the old 5Ds against R5), but the concept is the same with the lenses: do I want the 24-105? Yes. Can I buy it? Let's say yes. Will it make me more money then the used 600€ old 24-70 II? No, it won't, my daily rate will stay the same (and I say mine; of course if I was an hybrid shooter, maybe I can do different or more work, and the lens may actually bring me more money). So from a business perspective, it's not a good purchase.
Same for the RF 24-70, and the 28-70 (even if this last one can actually change part of my photography thanks to the added brightness, but it's questionable to say that this change would bring me more money); I want them, I can pay for them, but they won't make me any extra money, so there's no sense in upgrade to them if I'm a business. Back then when I was an amateur, everything was justified; now it's not.

Anyway, thanks for the kind answer, it's nice to have a friendly discussion without being called fool or troll

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

 

[scyrene]

If married that long, then expressing an “I enjoy being with my wife, but I wish she would buy new bed linens more often”, I doubt my friends would say, “just dump her already!”

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

 

[photographer]

If you noticed, since I'm here I've always criticized glass strategies; but you never saw me say anything bad about bodies. Never ever.

And that's because bodies quality, ergonomics and functionality are the motives I'm still with Canon; I don't particularly like Nikon, and I have never liked Sony, specially for ergonomics and menu (but I heard menu are getting better), and I also see plenty of reports of a non-standard and fragile hot shoe connection.

I don't want to switch, because Canon bodies are what works best for me; but I do want to have the choice of using different lenses then Canon offers, for various reasons including surely price at first, but also focal lengths choices and availabilities, size& weight, etc.

To be clear, if I'll ever switch (because yes I like Canon bodies, but I value glass more then bodies), and then third party lenses will become available on Canon, I'll most likely get back in a heartbeat; so I just would love to know if this will ever happen, and when, because I see no sense in switch today to then come back in 2 years from now, I don't play with stuff, I work with it.

Switching when you're an amateur, and camera and lenses are just expensive toys to play with in the spare time it's so easy to say and do; when you use something since 24 years, dating back to film days, and you have invested in bodies, lenses, triggers, accessories, in knowledge of the system, in your muscle memory to operate dials, buttons, menu, in how to treat their raw files, etc, switching brand is not something you do on the whim of a sleepless night.

"because yes I like Canon bodies, but I value glass more then bodies" - I do not understand you. If lenses are more important to you (which I understand), why are you dealing with the availability of third-party lenses? Canon is top when it comes to lenses. The Sigma Art 50 1.4 is great, but the Canon 50 1.2 L is better. Likewise the 85. The only Sigma that is unique and where Canon probably has no direct competition is the 105 1.4.

 

[photographer]

I'll answer you with a video I just watched today:

He's doing examples with bodies (the old 5Ds against R5), but the concept is the same with the lenses: do I want the 24-105? Yes. Can I buy it? Let's say yes. Will it make me more money then the used 600€ old 24-70 II? No, it won't, my daily rate will stay the same (and I say mine; of course if I was an hybrid shooter, maybe I can do different or more work, and the lens may actually bring me more money). So from a business perspective, it's not a good purchase.
Same for the RF 24-70, and the 28-70 (even if this last one can actually change part of my photography thanks to the added brightness, but it's questionable to say that this change would bring me more money); I want them, I can pay for them, but they won't make me any extra money, so there's no sense in upgrade to them if I'm a business. Back then when I was an amateur, everything was justified; now it's not.

Anyway, thanks for the kind answer, it's nice to have a friendly discussion without being called fool or troll

This is true up to a point. If I hire a professional for a lot of money, I expect him to have professional equipment. Not that he pulls a worse camera out of his bag than the client's thirteen-year-old daughter has to play with.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If lenses are more important to you (which I understand), why are you dealing with the availability of third-party lenses? Canon is top when it comes to lenses.

3rd party lenses are cheaper.

 

[Walrus]

"because yes I like Canon bodies, but I value glass more then bodies" - I do not understand you. If lenses are more important to you (which I understand), why are you dealing with the availability of third-party lenses? Canon is top when it comes to lenses. The Sigma Art 50 1.4 is great, but the Canon 50 1.2 L is better. Likewise the 85. The only Sigma that is unique and where Canon probably has no direct competition is the 105 1.4.

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.

 

[Walrus]

This is true up to a point. If I hire a professional for a lot of money, I expect him to have professional equipment. Not that he pulls a worse camera out of his bag than the client's thirteen-year-old daughter has to play with.

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?

 

[danfaz]

...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.

Although I agree with photography being about craft, I've seen plenty of guests at events, or spectators at sports events toting high end gear and some even wanting to compare. I've been complimented numerous times about the gear I have without a person ever seeing a shot I took. That also includes my clients. People aren't as naive as we may think.

 

[Walrus]

Although I agree with photography being about craft, I've seen plenty of guests at events, or spectators at sports events toting high end gear and some even wanting to compare. I've been complimented numerous times about the gear I have without a person ever seeing a shot I took. People aren't as naive as we may think.

Question: they were amateurs, or they were pro (if they declared it)?

Because I'm pretty sure that, in a professional environment, when you arrive on a set, neither the art director, the producer, the customer, the scenographer, etc, will comment on your camera and gear; if you're there, it's because is assured that you're the guy for that job and had been carefully chosen for you skills, regardless of your gear.

I have had, I said it, plenty of guest at weddings that asked me and commented on my gear; 99% of them were amateurs. Meanwhile, I have never had the bride&groom comment on my gear. Customers hires you for your talent and your portfolio, doesn't care what you got in the backpack.

 

[danfaz]

Question: they were amateurs, or they were pro (if they declared it)?

Because I'm pretty sure that, in a professional environment, when you arrive on a set, neither the art director, the producer, the customer, the scenographer, etc, will comment on your camera and gear; if you're there, it's because is assured that you're the guy for that job and had been carefully chosen for you skills, regardless of your gear.

I have had, I said it, plenty of guest at weddings that asked me and commented on my gear; 99% of them were amateurs. Meanwhile, I have never had the bride&groom comment on my gear. Customers hires you for your talent and your portfolio, doesn't care what you got in the backpack.

Sorry, I forgot to add my clients are included in the gear complimenting. As far as the guests/spectators, nobody claimed to be a pro.
The thing is, in my experience, people seem to know what fancy gear is, and they feel like they're getting their money's worth if I'm carrying that fancy gear.

 

[Walrus]

Sorry, I forgot to add my clients are included in the gear complimenting. As far as the guests/spectators, nobody claimed to be a pro.

Well, if customer knows his sh*t and compliment you, I think that's a bonus but I wouldn't deem as something so common.

Yes, they may compliment you, but if you did a good work, but went there with a 5DII for example, the customer would have told you "geez dude, I pay you so much money and you came here with a 2008 camera? My son shot birds with a R3! Yes, your work is amazing, and my son's pics are horrible, but man, he's got a better camera then yours! That's unacceptable!". I don't think so, that's all I'm saying

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Because Canon is not manufacturing a specific focal length that I really like, but two other competitors do

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.