New 24-105 f4 L Coming?

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

They do, but they seem a lot sharper than their EF predecessors IMO. I have been really impressed with the RF 24-105 f4-7.1 and the RF 35 f1.8. Not for many years have I used non L glass and it seems to have come a long way - apart from how the max aperture sadly.

I agree with you. I think anyone would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a picture shot on a RF L lens and an RF non-L lens when shot at the same speed/iso/aperture and focal length. Maybe a few people could tell the difference but the IQ on the non-L lenses is very good. You’re paying for brighter, weather sealing, build quality, extra coatings, and nano USM. I use the 85 F2 extensively, it’s my favorite lens, and the images I get from that lens are stellar.

That being said, when my business allows, an 85 f1.2 DS will be purchased…. After the zooms. I love sports and I want to add sports to my business model, but I really need the F2.8 holy trinity to produce the product/quality I want.




.

 

[KD_Reno]

The RF 70-200s are generally well liked, but some, sports photographers in particular, seem to really want an internal zoom and the ability to use teleconverters. So a new one might be an addition rather than a replacement. But Canon seems to have seriously limited information leaks since the beginning of the RF system, so I discount them all now.

 

[Bear]

The rumor sites say a version 2 of a current lens is coming, and the speculation is that it will be an updated 24-105 f4 L. So....if it's an improvement over the current version, will you buy it? My current lens is really good, so I'm on the "doubtful" side of the fence.

Nope… very happy with the one I have now.

 

[RedCobra]

Seems to actually be a 24-105 f/2.8 L Z. The Z may indicate electronic zoom. Video people will like this.

I have the RF 24-70 f/2.8 and the RF 24-105 f/4.0 so I am not really interested in this lens. When i need fast, I have the f/2.8, and when I need light weight I have the f/4.0
If I need the 70-105 range, I have the RF 70-200 f/2.8.

 

[MikeZ]

I agree with Bear and RedCobra. For me, the only obvious advantage of the 24-105 f2.8 lens would be dept of field since the extra stop is of little use with the ISO flexibility of these cameras (as many of the posters on this board have proven). I shoot an R5 and have been able push ISO to 1600 and beyond with no ill effects on the image. DxO Pure Raw gets some credit here as well.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

I shoot an R5 and have been able push ISO to 1600 and beyond with no ill effects on the image. DxO Pure Raw gets some credit here as well.

I can easily push 6400 with a little clean up in the R6M2. I shot halloween last night and set Auto ISO to max out at 6400 with a Godox on ETTL, results were stellar. I don’t normally shoot auto ISO, but the dynamic nature of chasing kids around just made it easier. 1/250, f1.8 nifty fifty. I decided to use Wonder Years preset from FroPack 1 and no noise reduction for a vintage look since the atmosphere last night reminded me of Halloweens when I was a kid. Recent years had low turnouts, minimal neighborhood participation and this year was just like old times with lots of kids and neighbors participating. Photos came out pretty darn well for direct flash in extremely low light.

I’ll add that I’m struggling to decide which lenses to add for event work. I shoot primes with the 24-105 STM exception (Because it was a kit) and I can’t decide if I need to spend the money for f2.8. The Sigma EF offerings make f2.8 more reachable, but the Sigma Art EF 24-105 f/4 can be had brand new for less than $800 and the 70-200 f2.8 for the same price as the Canon RF f/4. I can’t decide if I want the DoF flexibility of the f2.8…

 

[SO8]

Seems to actually be a 24-105 f/2.8 L Z. The Z may indicate electronic zoom. Video people will like this.

I have the RF 24-70 f/2.8 and the RF 24-105 f/4.0 so I am not really interested in this lens. When i need fast, I have the f/2.8, and when I need light weight I have the f/4.0
If I need the 70-105 range, I have the RF 70-200 f/2.8.

The Canon video does indeed indicate an adapter as a powered zoom option for video.

It is the size of a 70-200.

Def not for me.

I am glad they have left the current RF 24-105 f4 alone.

I am content with my current lens line up …. I think lol … def no need for this one though.

 

[dmanthree]

Yeah, the extra stop of the new 24-105 isn't of interest to me. On a recent trip I took two lenses; the 24-240 and the 14-35. Never wanted for anything else thanks to the R5's ability to shoot at higher ISOs and give nice results.

 

[DeltaGolf62]

I'll wait to see real world images and user feedback, but it's definitely of interest. I quite often shoot at night, handheld, so 2.8 would help. Internal zoom helps when the weather is inclement. Downsides Vs my current 24-105 f4 as I see it are weight (1330g Vs 700g), size (199mm vs 151mm for the f4 fully extended), and new filter size (82mm Vs 77mm). Let's see.....

 

[Photofarmer]

The current RF 70-200 f2.8 is not liked ... really ?? It is stunning compared to the older one in terms of size and IQ is brilliant. I've had both and only one is a walk around. It doesn't need updating, unlike the 24-105L which more often than not people find less exceptional than they though (though my copy was good).

took the words right out of my mouth ive never ever heard anyone dissapointed other than $$$ that leaves your wallet