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

[ashmadux]

I thought the whole purpose of the 24-105mm F4L is to have an all-in-one travel / walk around zoom with decent image quality. The current IBIS tech in mirrorless bodies makes the F4 more than adequate for a variety of light situation. If they make it F2.8 and double the weight/size, not to mention price, who is going to carry this around all day. It defeats the purpose of having a 24-105 zoom in the first place.

But it's not 2.8. That's the whole entire point. You don't just make a 2.8 lens for a tiny bit of bokeh. 2.8 matters.

 

[Dragon]

My guess is that powerzoom is similar to RF autofocus, i.e. focus-by-wire and zoom-by-wire.
I'll speculate some more. By guess is that mechanical coupling of the zoom ring to the lens elements is too complex in this lens, so they solved it with a zooming motor. My guess is that the reason is for mechanical simplicity, rather than a video-centric feature.
This is all pure speculation based on nothing at all. But, this is a rumors site after all.
My question is this: will it be internally zooming?

If the low res photo is representative, then internal zoom is almost certain. Also, a servo power zoom would not likely be used on an external zoom as too much likelihood of damaging the mechanism. I think you are on to something with the mechanical simplicity idea. 24-105 has always been a challenging range due to the need to go from retrofocus to telephoto in the execution of the zoom. The required cams have always been complex. Servo zoom allows multiple groups of floating elements with a much simpler (and more accurate) overall mechanism. The attractiveness for video is a feature, no matter what the original driver for the power zoom was. The question will be how the manual operation works. If it works like a typical camcorder zoom (rate control), still photographers will hate it, but if it works on a length vs. rotation basis like a normal zoom (or both options), it could be a win all around. Another benefit is that with a power zoom operated in that way, the effective cam rates are infinitely variable so the zoom control could be much more linear than most mechanical zooms. Only about 36 hours to reveal .

 

[mxwphoto]

The post has been updated. "Z" is for powerZoom. Can't wait to see how that gets implemented.

Called it! Looks like Canon probably lifted a page out of their 30-105 cine line for this lens.

 

[AJ]

If the low res photo is representative, then internal zoom is almost certain. Also, a servo power zoom would not likely be used on an external zoom as too much likelihood of damaging the mechanism. I think you are on to something with the mechanical simplicity idea. 24-105 has always been a challenging range due to the need to go from retrofocus to telephoto in the execution of the zoom. The required cams have always been complex. Servo zoom allows multiple groups of floating elements with a much simpler (and more accurate) overall mechanism. The attractiveness for video is a feature, no matter what the original driver for the power zoom was. The question will be how the manual operation works. If it works like a typical camcorder zoom (rate control), still photographers will hate it, but if it works on a length vs. rotation basis like a normal zoom (or both options), it could be a win all around. Another benefit is that with a power zoom operated in that way, the effective cam rates are infinitely variable so the zoom control could be much more linear than most mechanical zooms. Only about 36 hours to reveal .

If this is indeed zoom-by-wire, then it should be possible to reverse the zoom direction of the zoom ring through a menu or a switch. That'll help out ex-Nikon and Sony users as they flock to Canon.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If it works like a typical camcorder zoom (rate control), still photographers will hate it, but if it works on a length vs. rotation basis like a normal zoom (or both options), it could be a win all around.

Depends on the zoom responsiveness and speed. Typical zoom mechanisms require moving a lot more glass than typical focus mechanisms (an exception being the EF 85/1.2, where the focusing group comprised all lens elements except one – and we know how quickly that electronic focus motor worked…ponderously is generous).

 

[frankchn]

Depends on the zoom responsiveness and speed. Typical zoom mechanisms require moving a lot more glass than typical focus mechanisms (an exception being the EF 85/1.2, where the focusing group comprised all lens elements except one – and we know how quickly that electronic focus motor worked…ponderously is generous).

Ideally it will be on a similar system as the typical EF-lens ring-type USM focus ring setup. It can power zoom at whatever speed it wants, but I can grab the zoom ring at any point and it will be mechanical.

 

[john1970]

Hmmm. Honestly, that's making me have second thoughts the lens because of that. Sure, my ILCs shoot video and I don't use that feature at all, so I'm not opposed to a feature that I won't use. But on a camera body, it's actually a benefit since at least on my R3 if gives me more controls to customize. On a lens, an extra motor that I will probably never use just adds weight, size, complexity, and something else that can break.

I'll probably still preorder it, but will have to consider whether or not to keep that order active once more details come out.

I ended up canceling my preorder for this lens. I do not need the power zoom either and I already have this focal range covered by my compact 24-70 mm f2.8 and 70-200 mm f2.8. I could not justify the additional cost for this lens. I am going to order the RF 200-800 mm USM lens and hope to pick up my copy of the RF 10-20 mm later this week.

 

[danfaz]

I know this is crazy talk...but this leaked pic almost looks like it could be a 70-200 II?
There are a lot of switches on that, very reminiscent of a 70-200.

 

[David - Sydney]

So that would suggest a focus (pun intended) on videography and would also suggest that the lens is either naturally parfocal or effectively parfocal with some electronic assistance. Now the wedding photographers will be orgasmic. The only other lenses they could imagine ever needing would be the 85mm f/1.2 and/or the 135 f/1.2 for those super isolated shots.

Don't forget a macro lens though

 

[David - Sydney]

Remind me.... Didn't CR say that it would break the internet and be on the roadmap?
It isn't on the roadmap (before or now).
f/2.8 across 24-105mm would be somewhat innovative including power zoom (par focal?) but is it in the same innovation category as an AF TS-R lens?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Ideally it will be on a similar system as the typical EF-lens ring-type USM focus ring setup. It can power zoom at whatever speed it wants, but I can grab the zoom ring at any point and it will be mechanical.

As long as the zoom mechanism is mechanically coupled to the zoom ring, a motorized option is acceptable to me. If it’s zoom by wire, it’s not (unless it’s freakishly better than anything i’ve ever used with that intended function).

 

[dafrank]

If the picture accompanying this article is real, there isn't a chance that I'd get this lens, even if it was great in every quality category. Because: size and weight. It looks to be too big and too heavy for its intended role. The existing lenses in this segment are the 24-105 f4.0, the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 28-70 f/2.0, all very good performing lenses. The first two are also fairly compact and light, while the 3rd isn't, but has a truly rare, for any zoom, really wide aperture. This segment is the one that advanced amateurs and pros usually go to more than any other and often carry around all day. I would always rather carry my RF 24-70 f/2.8 on my camera and the RF 85 f/2.0 in my pocket for an even faster portrait focal length lens that probably will make an overall cheaper, smaller and lighter alternative. I'm sorry Canon, but unless some amazing factor is there that I can't yet imagine, a "normal" focal range zoom lens that may require a tripod ring is a non-starter.
.

 

[esglord]

No. I don't even want to talk about it anymore.

They are going to drop a 33mm and 37mm just to mess with people

 

[padam]

I'm sorry Canon, but unless some amazing factor is there that I can't yet imagine, a "normal" focal range zoom lens that may require a tripod ring is a non-starter.

The 70-200/2.8 also has a tripod ring, yet it isn't heavy at all. Since it will be heavily marketed towards professional video production, not having a detachable tripod ring with this length would be awkward, but I am not sure that it is going to be as heavy as some expect it to be, should be fine for handheld use.
And no point in comparing a two lens solution versus a single one, markedly different.

 

[H. Jones]

Am I the only one not convinced that Z means power zoom? I feel like Z is Canon saying this is an internal zoom lens.

A few weeks ago we were talking about Canon releasing another RF 70-200 that has internal zoom and wondering what they would name it to differentiate.

If this has the "Z" naming convention, it could be leading to 70-200mm "Z"

 

[DhlcadR6]

This RF24-105LZ will give room to 3rd parties to introduce 28-70/28-75 f2.8 without direct competition...I can see Canon is designing the segment well for future...(Copium

If this lens is popular and gets further versions....It will be Z>Z2>ZZ>FAZZ>S>EX-S>V>Ξ right

 

[padam]

Am I the only one not convinced that Z means power zoom? I feel like Z is Canon saying this is an internal zoom lens.

There is a zoom rocker before the tripod ring on the side like the Sony 28-135 lens, only higher-end. This lens also foreshadows upcoming full-frame RF cinema cameras, kind of in between a stills lens and a cinema lens both with regards to features and pricing.

The 70-200 will be more catered towards sports and action (quick to zoom), so they might use something associated with that.

 

[Dragon]

Don't forget a macro lens though

Oh, yes, I forgot about the ring shots .

 

[David - Sydney]

The 70-200/2.8 also has a tripod ring, yet it isn't heavy at all. Since it will be heavily marketed towards professional video production, not having a detachable tripod ring with this length would be awkward, but I am not sure that it is going to be as heavy as some expect it to be, should be fine for handheld use.
And no point in comparing a two lens solution versus a single one, markedly different.

I haven't used my tripod ring for my RF70-200/2.8. Light enough that a reasonable size ball head can support it okay for short shutter speeds.
I did find that I needed the tripod ring for my 100-500 @500mm for a 30 seconds exposure a couple of weeks ago.

 

[H. Jones]

There is a zoom rocker before the tripod ring on the side like the Sony 28-135 lens, only higher-end. This lens also foreshadows upcoming full-frame RF cinema cameras, kind of in between a stills lens and a cinema lens both with regards to features and pricing.

The 70-200 will be more catered towards sports and action (quick to zoom), so they might use something associated with that.

Hm, to me that just looked like the "lock" slider on the RF 24-70, unless I'm missing something else. I would presume a zoom rocker on a lens of this size would be significantly larger than a button, but I guess we'll find out tomorrow!

Either way, I will say this RF 24-105mm F/2.8L IS announcement feels like a really cool and big surprise. I can't think of many iconic lenses like this that have come totally out of the blue without any prior hype, and this will undoubtably be the "go-to" normal zoom for the Canon system for many years.

It's clear it's an incredibly professional piece of equipment.