Canon RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z to be announced this week

[DhlcadR6]

Nikon disagrees. They even use fluorite elements in their 70-200/2.8, 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses and those are black. That's especially ironic since in their description of ED glass they state, "Calcium fluorite crystals were once used to correct this problem in telephoto lenses, but the substance cracked easily and was sensitive to temperature changes. So Nikon created ED glass, which offers all the benefits, but none of the drawbacks of calcium fluorite-based glass."

All Nikon's lenses are black though.....It's the matter of gold ring.

 

[DhlcadR6]

I don't really see the point of f/2.8 trinity any more.

1) We don't need it for viewfinder brightness.

2) We don't need it for autofocus.

3) We don't need it to avoid grain/noise or to freeze motion on moving subjects. (Current sensors are fantastically low-noise at high ISO.)

4) We don't need it to shoot still subjects that would otherwise require a tripod (50/1.8 on R5 shoots about as well at 1/2 sec as at any speed above 1/30)

5) We don't need it to make subjects pop from backgrounds. (It used to be that focus was never great, lenses weren't so high resolution, film was grainy, exposures were blurred by camera shake, and so even the SUBJECT was pretty blurry. Because of those factors, we didn't use images in big sizes. In order to make the background visibly yet blurrier at this low print size, f/2.8 sometimes helped to make the subject stand out. But now, we prepare every shot even for our personal social media to be 15" (38cm) wide. The sensors are practically noiseless. The AF is utterly nailed to the subject eyes. Lenses can do 50lp/mm or better at very high contrast. Sensors are noise-free up to ISO 4000+. IBIS saves us with camera shake. The subject is absolutely clear as a bell and even f/4 (wider shots) or 72mm aperture (tele) gives us more pop at these large image sizes than we ever got at f/2.8 in the old days.

------------

I wish the folks using Sony/Nikon with 3rd parties can be sensible as you. They attack RF all the time saying f4+IS are inferior to their f2.8 trinities.

 

[frankchn]

Close, but possibly no cigar, (unless it has much better optics than the 24-104 f/4). Now, if it was an RF 24-240 2.8 "L" I'd buy two of them, and ditch my iPhone for walking around, day trips, and vacay / sightseeing (with the occasional Shutterstock worthy photo in the mix).

That would be probably 10 pounds and $20k

 

[DhlcadR6]

I consider him to be an extremely unreliable source who just makes videos about topics he reads here. He hasn’t demonstrated any insider information in the past.

Yea...He copy CR or CW sites for reference

 

[danfaz]

I consider him to be an extremely unreliable source who just makes videos about topics he reads here. He hasn’t demonstrated any insider information in the past.

Yeah, pretty much my observations, too.
We'll find out if he's right in about 10 minutes.

 

[bereninga]

Is the internet broken yet???

 

[neuroanatomist]

Ordered at 12:02a.

 

[danfaz]

Ordered at 12:02a.

Me, too!

 

[danfaz]

Is the internet broken yet???

No joke, B&H was weirding out on me when I was trying to place my order! LOL

 

[David - Sydney]

and they have been announced - at least in Australia!
Iris ring for aperture control and dual non-USM
AUD5400!!
Optional Canon PZ-E2 Power Zoom Adapter (AUD1850) and LH-1 Lens holder

 

[neuroanatomist]

And a relief - the Z just means compatible with the new PZ-E2 Power Zoom adapters (two versions). Nothing in the lens itself (except contacts on the barrel).

Oh, and it has an aperture ring!!!!



I suppose the focus ring has a different texture (bigger ribbing) because of the, "Focus Ring with Tactile Feedback."

 

[neuroanatomist]

All three lenses are supposed to ship in December.

 

[nhandumuc]

All hail the king again! They pull another fantastic lens just like RF 70-200mm 2.8 again! Now I can finally stop bothering which one to buy between 24-70 2.8 and 24-105 4.

 

[DhlcadR6]

This 24-205L/2.8 is heavier than 70-200L/2.8......How

 

[neuroanatomist]

This 24-205L/2.8 is heavier than 70-200L/2.8......How

More glass. A lens spanning wide angle to telephoto needs a more complex design than a lens that’s only telephoto.

 

[danfaz]

This 24-205L/2.8 is heavier than 70-200L/2.8......How

23 elements vs. 17?

 

[nhandumuc]

This 24-205L/2.8 is heavier than 70-200L/2.8......How

But it is longer so the weight is kind of balance out, and not much heavier, 300gr heavier but longer would make it easy to carry over long period.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But it is longer so the weight is kind of balance out, and not much heavier, 300gr heavier but longer would make it easy to carry over long period.

It’s basically the same size as the 70-200/2.8 when extended. Except the 24-105/2.8 is an internal zoom.

 

[DhlcadR6]

It’s basically the same size as the 70-200/2.8 when extended. Except the 24-105/2.8 is an internal zoom.

So the rumoured 70-200/2.8 internal zzoom could be using the same housing....maybe name it RF70-200LZ

 

[AlP]

Very tempting...
Might be the replacement for my EF 24-70 f/2.8 II at some point. It's rather heavy (for obvious reasons), but if it can replace a 24-105 f/4 as a general purpose lens and 1-2 faster lenses for when larger apertures are needed, weight and size are less of an issue. Internal zooming also means no risk of cam roller wear like I had with the EF and RF f/4 zooms.
Good also that there is no built-in power zoom, that would have been a showstopper for me.
Canon advertises this lens as having the same performance as the RF 24-70 f/2.8 but with the added range. The MTF charts seem to support this, and look very good considering that this is a 4x zoom. Here are the charts for the new 24-105 f/2.8 compared to the RF 24-105 f/4 and the RF 24-70 f/2.8 (top to bottom):