PinholeR5
Member
Is anyone interested in the Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM?
-
Welcome to Focus on Photography Forum!
Come join the fun, make new friends and get access to hidden forums, resources, galleries and more.
We encourage you to sign up and join our community.
Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM
- Thread starter PinholeR5
- Start date
ChuckMiller
Gold Member
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2023
- Posts
- 1,414
- Likes
- 4,154
- Location
- Lakeland, Florida
- Name
- Chuck Miller
- Image Editing
- No
I certainly will be when my R5 days begin. 24-105 is a very handy focal range. I hope the image quality matches the 24-70 2.8 mk2
Plus they have a motor for zooming which is pretty pricey. I don’t need the extra stop either. I’m happy with my f4.
Paul D. (Cyberex)
Member
I like my RF f4, this my travel lens, studio lens, street lens, but not portrait lens. F2.8 can be good for portraits but with my 70-200 I understand that magic bokeh belong to 135-200 mm, so 105 could be too short for this kind of work. And $3k + longer than 70-200 and heavier... No, thanks. Better for me to add 85/1.4.
Last edited:
gmcphotographics
Member
I think it's an amazing focal range and a huge technical achievement.
For me personally, it's not a lens I have a current need for. It makes an amazing centre piece for a great and super versatile 3 lens line up,
Say a RF 15-35mm f2.8, RF 24-105mm f2.8 and a RF 100-300mm f2.8.
A massive coverage from 15mm through to 300mm all at a constant aperture of f2.8.
For me personally, it's not a lens I have a current need for. It makes an amazing centre piece for a great and super versatile 3 lens line up,
Say a RF 15-35mm f2.8, RF 24-105mm f2.8 and a RF 100-300mm f2.8.
A massive coverage from 15mm through to 300mm all at a constant aperture of f2.8.
gmcphotographics
Member
I totally disagree.
Shooting 85mm or 105mm @ f2.8 isn't a magic formula for portraiture. Most people wouldn't notice the slightly creamier diffused background or bokeh from either lens. It's not until you hit th f1.2, f1.4, f2.0 zone that things really look different. Generally, background seperation is perfectly diffuse enough at F4, you just need to find the ideal distance from the subject to the background. You just ahve to work the scene a bit more with your subject placement with the F4 lens.
There are very little differences between a 24-70mm f2.8 and the 24-105mm f4. What the f4 looses in aperture, it gains with telephoto compression...so their results are comparible. What we are discussing here is the virtue of the exstra range with the f2.8 aperture and most portrait photographers already have this range already covered with either a 100mm f2.8 Macro or the wide end of a 70-200mm f2.8. Where this lens use case scenario is where it fits in a lens selection. It mates well with a 100-300mm f2.8, but not so well with a 70-200/2.8.
Paul D. (Cyberex)
Member
I guess, we talking about personal tastes
I had 85/1.2 and 135/2 - that was a great portrait lenses. Outdated a little, especially on high mp sensors, but magic was there
105 f2.8 can't create same pictures, for me.If new lens can be so small like f4 - it'll be great all-round lens, but for this size and price, it's a niche product, imho.
btw, many people screaming Canon in their instagram about fast primes.
gmcphotographics
Member
I was a wedding photographer for nearly 15 years, the EF 85mm f1.2 II L and EF 35mm F1.4 L were my staple lenses. There is a look that only these primes can offer that can't be easily achieved with a f2.8 Zoom. A 200mm f2.8 comes close, but not at 135/2.8 or 105/2.8 or 85mm f2.8.I guess, we talking about personal tastes
I had 85/1.2 and 135/2 - that was a great portrait lenses. Outdated a little, especially on high mp sensors, but magic was there
If new lens can be so small like f4 - it'll be great all-round lens, but for this size and price, it's a niche product, imho.
btw, many people screaming Canon in their instagram about fast primes.
The Macro 100mm f2.8 is pretty amazing, super dooper sharp and it's not limited by the usual close focus barrier.
I still use the EF 85mm f1.2 II L and EF 135mm F2.0 L. I upgraded my EF 35mm f1.4 L for a mkII recently because it was a little soft on my R6ii. The other two primes are sharp enough, but a wee bit softer than they used to be on my 22mp 5DIII's. The R6ii is resolving more detail in it's 24mp images than my 5DIII's ever did. I'm very happy with the R6ii's 24mp sensor, I don't really have a need or desire to jump any further (like the R5's 45mp).
It's amazing how Canon invented the particular f2.8 trinity that we are familair with. Origally with the 28-70/f2.8 and then the 24-70/f2.8. For years these lenes were frowned upon by prosumers for being over the top, expensive and heavy for what they were. Yet they were the backbone of professional photographers for years. These days I see 24-70/2.8's in a lot of enthusiasts hands as the centre piece of their lens collection and they are much more common these days. Canon have effectively "done it again" and "re-invented" the new f2.8 trinity. For a photojournalist, this lens will be the new defacto "go to" lens, especially mated to a 15-35mm and a 100-300/2.8! It's the centre piece of a new 2.8 trinity.
I wonder if Canon are developing a 11-24mm f2.8 as a new UWA 2.8 trinity option?
Back to this new 24-105mm f2.8, this new lens isn't small. It's basically the same size and bulk of the older EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS III. Just a smaller pedal hood (which isn't going to do anything at the 105mm end). So it's not a small or portable lens in any sense of the normal general zoom. It's one of those lenses that will be super versatile though. For many, it's a step too far and inconvienent in terms of it's size and weight. If you get this lens, you then have to re-think your entire lens collection because it's not going to work as well with your 70-200/2.8 as well as a 24-70/2.8 (if that makes any sence).
Last edited:
Paul D. (Cyberex)
Member
Yes, for photojournalists f24-102 f2.8 will be good option.
I guess f4 for wide angle is fine, you can use relatively long exposures without blurring.
for 4kg ?
I guess f4 for wide angle is fine, you can use relatively long exposures without blurring.
milo
New Member
I feel like this lens falls into the category of "if you need it, you know you need it" .... and most common folks don't need it. The wedding photographers will all buy it most likely.
Exactly. I don't need it!
gmcphotographics
Member
I'm actually pretty by this lens. It's a lens I just can't see myself using or needing in my photography. I'm not against this lens, I really want to try one mostly out of curiousity.
I'm not sure it's a wedding 'tog's toy. It creates a new problem in what do you pair with it. You will usually need something wider, so a 15-35/2.8 Makes sence. Most Wedding guys will already ahve a lens in that range. But at the long end it cuts in to the 70-200/2.8's range a fair bit. Sure it's nice to have that range in just the one lens, but I suspect that you will see simular results from the wide end of the 70-200/2.8 or event the long end of the 28-70/f2.
I think this lens was made for a 24-105/f2 and a 100-300/f2.8 combo, which isn't quite a wedding photographer's thing either. Maybe some guys will make do with this one single lens. I guess it I'd like to see some wedding results from it first.
Nature's Spectrum
Member
I applaud the design but it doesn't fit well with what I shoot most of the time. The extended focal range is nice, but it is not a lens I covet carrying through the forests.
OP
OP
PinholeR5
Member
The motor for zooming is actually an external attachment, PZ-E2 or PZ-E2B at an extra $999.99 or 1299.99, depending on features. So it is even more expensive if you want that functionality
I think the main target was video/hybrid shooters for this lens. Also, the rumored RF 70-200mm f/2.8 non-extending zoom is rumored to be compatible with the PZ-E2(B).
Regardless, it is very interesting. I wanted this lens for a long time, in the EF days, that is. Having the EF 24-105 F4 and the 24-70 F2.8 and the extra-length vs faster lens dilemma. Often took both for FOMO. Used the 24-105 outdoors and the 24-70 indoors.
Now there is the RF 28-70mm F2 vs the RF 24-105 F2.8 dilemma. Both are a tank of a lens.
RF 28-70mm F2: 1.43 kg
RF 24-105mm F2.8: 1.33 kg
So the 24-105mm is lighter than the 28-70mm and if you were willing to carry that around, then the 24-105mm F2.8 shouldn't be a problem.
jwcdds
New Member
Looks like I should be receiving this lens in the near future. Just got notification that BH charged my CC. (Along with the 10-20).
I like the range, but will have to see if I like the size/weight. *fingers crossed*
I like the range, but will have to see if I like the size/weight. *fingers crossed*
Nature's Spectrum
Member
Nice! Let us know what you think.
gmcphotographics
Member
I'm more interested in the recently rumoured RF 70-150mm f2.0.
For me, that's the perfect portrait zoom lens.
If it can take a 1.4x TC then it also becomes a really useful 100-200mm f2.8.
That would be super versatile!
For me, that's the perfect portrait zoom lens.
If it can take a 1.4x TC then it also becomes a really useful 100-200mm f2.8.
That would be super versatile!
Anton Largiader
Gold Member
I would love to have this. I have some indoor sports subjects that are right on the 70mm edge so they get too big for the 70-200 but a 24-70 would be too short most of the time. The 70-100 overlap that this lens gives would be really useful, although it would still be used alongside a 70-200 most of the time.
Whether or not it's $1000 useful (or $1600 useful if the RF24-70 is on refurb blowout) is a different matter. People who have upgraded their 70-200 to the 100-300 will, of course, be attracted to this. Hey, it's just money. The new sports trinity: 24-100, 100-300, 400.
Whether or not it's $1000 useful (or $1600 useful if the RF24-70 is on refurb blowout) is a different matter. People who have upgraded their 70-200 to the 100-300 will, of course, be attracted to this. Hey, it's just money. The new sports trinity: 24-100, 100-300, 400.
milo
New Member
I shoot my daughters track meets (indoor and outdoor) and my sons indoor soccer (smaller field for the indoor season) ... this lens would be absolutely perfect, but I'm guessing it'll be over $3,000. By the time I have the money to buy it, my kids will be done with school
Similar threads
