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
Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.
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!
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!
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.
You have to try it, it's sharper than the 24-105 and the macro function is really useful
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.
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.
-Brian
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.
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".;)
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.
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.
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
My RF 24-105 wobbled significantly. So much so that I sold it. I'm not sure I want to buy another one