svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDEwMjQnIHhtbG5zPSdodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2Zyc+PC9zdmc+ - Preorder the Canon EOS Rebel T8i and Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM

    Preorder the Canon EOS Rebel T8i and Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM

    By Updated:23 Comments1 Min Read Deals on Gear
    Share.

    Related Posts

    23 comments

    3. I'm not really looking forward to a full lineup of 7.1 lenses. I hope that's not what they have planned.
      Mirrorless opens up a whole new world of profitable lens designs.
    4. I'm not really looking forward to a full lineup of 7.1 lenses. I hope that's not what they have planned.
      It's not ideal, but I think there's a niche for it - if a f/7.1 gets you 500mm in a 100-400 equivalent pack size/weight, then that's worth the trade off for some. I don't think it absolves Canon of making some bigger and faster lenses eventually - they certainly seem to have committed to fast RF lenses too.
    5. It's not ideal, but I think there's a niche for it - if a f/7.1 gets you 500mm in a 100-400 equivalent pack size/weight, then that's worth the trade off for some. I don't think it absolves Canon of making some bigger and faster lenses eventually - they certainly seem to have committed to fast RF lenses too.

      Oops, I didn't read the specs fully. Apparently the 24-105 is the rumored cheap macro lens. The 7.1 maximum aperture makes more sense now. Still not too happy about the 100-500, but then again no one is forcing me to buy it.
    7. I'm not really looking forward to a full lineup of 7.1 lenses. I hope that's not what they have planned.
      Explain how it's upsetting to you. You won''t be forced to buy them, I promise. YOU HAVE MY WORD.
    8. Explain how it's upsetting to you. You won''t be forced to buy them, I promise. YOU HAVE MY WORD.

      Obviously because it seems like this is their answer to "we want cheaper RF lenses" and it just seems very consumer unfriendly. You can't honestly tell me that you're excited about, or even okay with, a 7.1 lineup.
    9. Obviously because it seems like this is their answer to "we want cheaper RF lenses" and it just seems very consumer unfriendly. You can't honestly tell me that you're excited about, or even okay with, a 7.1 lineup.
      No, I'm not interested in them so that precludes any excitement. But I am happy for others who would care about the lens, for any of it's attributes. I think these type of lenses ARE very consumer friendly, perhaps not advanced enthusist friendly. That's because of differentiation. You can't possibly think they should only make top tier items, right? You're smarter than that.

      Boy, bashing for any and every reason sure is in vogue. Imho, I think Canon's moves these days are very 'half full'
    10. You can't possibly think they should only make top tier items, right?

      No, but you can get faster kit lenses for cheaper. Defending Canon at all costs is also in vogue here it seems. Canon is my favorite camera manufacturer, but I have no problem calling them out on silly decisions like this. Anyway, we'll see how far they take this 7.1 thing. The "macro" lens is fine. The super-telephoto is not, at all. And they're going to charge RF mount prices for it. I'd much rather have had a 100-400 5.6 or a 200-500 5.6. If this 100-500 is going to take up the slot of a faster super-telephoto, yeah, people are going to be mad about it.
    11. In my opinion these f/7.1 lenses hint that no APS-C RF body is coming. This 24-105 lens is comparable to what Fuji offers in terms of reach and light gathering among their lower end lenses.
    12. I'm surprised the 100-500/4.5-7.1 will have the the "L" badge. I guess it's because it has a USM motor rather than STM.
      It'll be interesting to see well it'll do. There are a bunch of sharp and affordable lenses already available that are 100 mm longer and 1/3 stop faster (i.e. the 150-600 offerings from Tamron and Sigma).
    13. No, but you can get faster kit lenses for cheaper. Defending Canon at all costs is also in vogue here it seems. Canon is my favorite camera manufacturer, but I have no problem calling them out on silly decisions like this. Anyway, we'll see how far they take this 7.1 thing. The "macro" lens is fine. The super-telephoto is not, at all. And they're going to charge RF mount prices for it. I'd much rather have had a 100-400 5.6 or a 200-500 5.6. If this 100-500 is going to take up the slot of a faster super-telephoto, yeah, people are going to be mad about it.

      "Silly?"

      My crop M50 with the kit 55-200 only goes to 6.3 at the far end. For my use, 6.3 lets in enough light. Having the 7.1 on a FULL Frame will give me WAY more light, and keeping the size of the lens much smaller if it was designed <7.1. Price would be lower too. So none of this sounds "silly" to me.

      Oh, and by the way, I have their 70-200 L, but that is way heaver than the kit. There is a time and place for each one. The 7.1 might be a good addition to my set of lenses.
    15. I'm surprised the 100-500/4.5-7.1 will have the the "L" badge. I guess it's because it has a USM motor rather than STM.
      It'll be interesting to see well it'll do. There are a bunch of sharp and affordable lenses already available that are 100 mm longer and 1/3 stop faster (i.e. the 150-600 offerings from Tamron and Sigma).

      L badge usually means optical performance, build quality, weather sealing, and focus performance. Variable aperture hasn’t been a minus point before, or the 100-400 would not have been a L lens.
    16. Well, I have had to think about this a little. RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L. I can see how this could be a very useful lens for me. At 500mm, f/7.1 @ 100 ft yields a DOF of 5.2 ft. 60' = a DOF of 1.88ft. For a guy who takes a whole lot of photos of his toddler grandson tearing around the park or at the lake, this lens might just be the all around ticket. It may not be the ticket if one is a birder creeping around the forest. I honestly don't understand all the hand wringing and criticism. Birding in the dark forest isn't all that's going on out there. If the shoe don't fit, nobody is forcing you to buy it. There'll be something faster and more expensive you can pick up to fit your needs better. Just slap that cash down on the barrel head. Sigma? Tamron? Yeah, not for me. BTW: Out on the sand in bright sun and front lit: 1/1300 sec, f/7.1, ISO 100. Back lit? 1/325 sec
    18. Not that go out to 500mm you can't.

      $399 for a 24-105 non-L at those specs? Very consumer friendly, in my opinion.

      Nikon sells a 500mm that only goes to 5.6, and for about $1300 on sale.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment