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

[sanj]

Whatttttt. I just woke up to this news here in India. AMAZING.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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!

No need to lock an internal zoom. But looks too small to be a zoom rocker. So maybe an extending zoom. Some people will complain…loudly. I really like the RF 70-200/2.8 design, so I won’t mind.

 

[sanj]

How RF 24-70 2.8 L will keep selling? I remember Canon was planning a RF 24-70 2.8 L II?

Lighter.

 

[sanj]

2.8 is the new 4

 

[sanj]

The more I think about it, the more I feel that I will need both the 2.8 and 4 lens. AAAAAAAA

 

[frankchn]

Lighter.

Also cheaper. I would not be surprised if Canon prices this lens at $3800 (though more likely $3500) -- or the MSRP of the 24-70/2.8L and the 24-105/4L put together.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Also cheaper. I would not be surprised if Canon prices this lens at $3800 (though more likely $3500) -- or the MSRP of the 24-70/2.8L and the 24-105/4L put together.

I doubt...This lens should price lower than RF28-70/2

 

[frankchn]

I doubt...This lens should price lower than RF28-70/2

I am pretty certain it won't, especially with the "Z" power zoom designation and seemingly designed for video use as well.

The only lens close to this in the Canon portfolio is the CN-E 30-105mm T/2.8L, and that is $10k.

Canon Rumors Guy has the same guess: https://nitter.net/canonrumorsguy/status/1719392204559364496#m

 

[David - Sydney]

just a general thought.... there is so much kerfuffle about Canon releasing f9 lenses and now a f2.8 lens.
I assume that this is the lens that was the rumoured internal zoom instead of a RF70-200mm/2.8 - right?

 

[DhlcadR6]

just a general thought.... there is so much kerfuffle about Canon releasing f9 lenses and now a f2.8 lens.
I assume that this is the lens that was the rumoured internal zoom instead of a RF70-200mm/2.8 - right?

24-105/2.8 was on the wish list few years back. I still think Canon will introduce 70-200/2.8L Z(power zoom) if this 24-105/2.8 is well receive and strong sales.

 

[sanj]

Sorry for my late comments. My internet was broken.

 

[GMAX]

I'm curious, what case would this not replace the 24-70 f/2.8 (assuming same IQ)?
I understand the 24-105 f/4 being much smaller and lighter, and of course the 28-70 has its f/2.

As written, I use the EF 24-70 2.8 (II). This happily with my 1DXII / III. The RF 24-105 2.8 can't replace this in any way. That's my case

 

[padam]

I still think Canon will introduce 70-200/2.8L Z(power zoom) if this 24-105/2.8 is well receive and strong sales.

The main criticism of the existing 70-200/2.8 is that it is too slow to zoom for sports, so I do not think it will be power zoom.

 

[SnowMiku]

What is a power zoom? It sounds like the type of zoom you have on a point and shoot.

 

[swkitt]

At first sight I would say this image is a fake, as I'd be very surprised that Canon make such a tripod mount, with Arca grooves and detachable feet looking very much like a Nikon. Specially as it would be totally different from the 100-300 it's supposed to go with.

I might be totally wrong, but that would be another big surprise after the non-L white lens.

 

[john1970]

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.

The recently announced RF 100-300 mm f2.8 is an internal zoom and does not have the "Z" designation. I think the rumor that the Z is for power zoom is very likely to be correct. One more day and we will know for certain.

 

[Marximusprime]

I'm sure this will be great for some people, but not for me. One, I can't justify the cost. Two, I'd rather buy an EF 24-70 II, adapt it on my R5, and put it in APS-C mode, haha.

 

[Skux]

Oh man I love the 28-70 but this sounds amazing.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

I don't think this lens is intended for the average Joe who fancies a versatile walkabouts. The f4 version more than covers that requirement.
This lens is intended for the hard working pro who is willing to shell out the $$$ for the convienience, coverage and imagery that a close focussing 24-105mm f2.8 IS can offer. It's going to be heavy, it's going to be large, it's going to be expensive and it's going to be amazing! Imagine this in a 2 lens line up, 24-105 f2.8 LIS and a RF 100-300mm F2.8 LIS.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

Yes it's getting close to a "One lens to rule them all"....however....I would like to see this RF 135mm f1.2 that you mentioned!
There's a few Cine CN-e lenses that haven't been ported over to the EF/RF format yet. Namely the CN-e 20mm T1.5 (f1.4) and the super exotic CN-e 45-135mm T2.4 (F2.2). However, this new RF 24-105 f2.8 does look a lot like a variant of the CN-e 30-105mm T2.8 lens.