# Canon RF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM on the way, as well as a second lens



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 29, 2020)

> Nokishita has appeared to confirm that Canon will release a new RF mount kit lens, the RF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM.
> We have also been told that a second lens was also coming soon, this one is a super-telephoto zoom for the RF mount. We think we know the focal range and speed, but we’re still working on confirming that information.
> *note: the image for this post is the Canon EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM



Continue reading...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 29, 2020)

Come on, what's the second one? 

Jack


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 29, 2020)

Where is the 100mm f/2.8 L IS equivalent lens?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 29, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Where is the 100mm f/2.8 L IS equivalent lens?



As much as i love shooting macro i don't think that lens is a priority. As long as lenses like 100-400, 70-200 F4, something longer than 400mm or small affordable primes are missing. Macro, wide angle and tilt-shift lenses the easiest to adapt.
But i believe a 100 macro will come sooner than later


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 29, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> Come on, what's the second one?
> 
> Jack



Likely the 100-400, a pretty essential lens.


----------



## miggyt (Jan 29, 2020)

thats fantastic kit lens! excellent range, fairly light and compact, and hopefully affordable. im jealous. wish sony/sigma/tamron would launch a similar lens for e-mount


----------



## Focus (Jan 29, 2020)

My bet is the 70-400mm 4.5-5.6 (from previous patent)


----------



## RGB86 (Jan 29, 2020)

A supertele zoom world be nice, though I'd be just as happy with a teleconverter for use with the 70-200.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 29, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Likely the 100-400, a pretty essential lens.


I'd guess something less traditional as it needs to be confirmed. What about 70-400? Or at least 150-400


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 29, 2020)

Traveler said:


> I'd guess something less traditional as it needs to be confirmed. What about 70-400? Or at least 150-400



I meant 100-400 type lens. But 70-400 would be be great if optically is at least the same as the EF 100-400


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 29, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> As much as i love shooting macro i don't think that lens is a priority. As long as lenses like 100-400, 70-200 F4, something longer than 400mm or small affordable primes are missing. Macro, wide angle and tilt-shift lenses the easiest to adapt.
> But i believe a 100 macro will come sooner than later


Tilt-shift and MP-E are definitely easy to adopt but I would like to see a native 100mm macro for RF mount. I suspect we will see 70-300mm and/or 100-400mm lenses sooner than native macro.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 29, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Tilt-shift and MP-E are definitely easy to adopt but I would like to see a native 100mm macro for RF mount. I suspect we will see 70-300mm and/or 100-400mm lenses sooner than native macro.



For the MP-E the CPL adapter is awesome, I get a polarizer without all the flaring and ghosting from the flash heads. An MP-R would need to offer a lot more for me to buy it. The Laowa 100mm comes very close to being the perfect lens for my macro shooting, it can focus to infinity and do 2x magnification. All with electronic aperture. It just needs IS and be better sealed in front.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 29, 2020)

Priorities for RF (in order of importance):

EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM range model with a compass in the stock and a thing that tells time
Inexpensive RF standard zoom (like this rumor)
RF something-600 (not necessarily an L) -- EF doesn't have this, so it will help sell RF bodies
Inexpensive/smaller non-L primes -- keep it simple: a 24 / 50 / 85 to go with the RF 35 f/1.8 STM
RF 70-400L (but I'm guessing Canon will do this sooner rather than later)
A 1:1 macro lens of some sort. 100mm makes sense, but not necessarily a must.
Probably one more Ferrari-like RF enticement, perhaps a crazy fast 135L
Why not a pancake
- A


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 29, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Tilt-shift and MP-E are definitely easy to adopt but I would like to see a native 100mm macro for RF mount. I suspect we will see 70-300mm and/or 100-400mm lenses sooner than native macro.



Well, those lenses are higher priority in my opinion. A 100mm macro or similar will definitely come, it's one of the most important lenses.


----------



## mjg79 (Jan 29, 2020)

I think Canon is going to keep RF for full frame so these sort of lenses matched to cheaper bodies will be the bread and butter of Rf sales.

For APS-C there will be EF-m - which allows for a much smaller and more compact body than Rf mount.

Is it the right or wrong approach? I've no idea. Many online forums are annoyed I think as there are birders who want a 7D style Rf crop body to mount full frame telephotos on but I think that was always a small group and its numbers are dropping very fast. The read out speeds and resolutions that full frame sensors are offering will soon make it far more sensible to just crop your full frame image. Right now it leaves some in a bit of a limbo, hence the popularity of the D500 I think, but long term I suspect Canon might be right. Those who want a smaller, cheaper set up can buy Ef-m, those who want full frame can buy Rf.

15 years ago one had to start with crop, several years ago crop was the only cheap way in, so "upgrade paths" made a lot of sense. Today that is diminishing.


----------



## mjg79 (Jan 29, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Tilt-shift and MP-E are definitely easy to adopt but I would like to see a native 100mm macro for RF mount. I suspect we will see 70-300mm and/or 100-400mm lenses sooner than native macro.



Yeah I think it will be years before most Tilt-Shift lenses get updated, the possible exceptions being the 17 and 24 if they can be made much smaller for Rf mount. The advantages of mirrorless are mostly few at wide angle.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 29, 2020)

mjg79 said:


> I think Canon is going to keep RF for full frame so these sort of lenses matched to cheaper bodies will be the bread and butter of Rf sales.
> 
> For APS-C there will be EF-m - which allows for a much smaller and more compact body than Rf mount.
> 
> Is it the right or wrong approach? I've no idea.




R7 discussion is the white hot speartip of 'gimme gimme gimme' that dominates proceedings here. It's fine, it's good, but offering a crop RF body is a much bigger call than just pleasing the 7D camp. It cracks open a very important door for Canon. Possibilities ensue:

1) Canon goes all-in on RF mount for all users (crop and FF) someday, and offer RF-S crop image circle lenses. EF-M is slowly put to pasture.

This eliminates any 'gotta buy new lenses' pain point for the crop mirrorless user to move up to a FF body.
Canon only needs to have one mount in production. Economies of scale ensue.
You can make an RF body nearly as small as an EOS M (1) if you wanted to. Small and light: check.
Sony and Nikon are already doing this with their mounts. If Canon doesn't, they'd be at a bit of a disadvantage (multiple mounts to support, pain point in moving up to an FF only RF system from EF-M).
2) Canon only offers crop RF (i.e. 'R7') just to placate the 7D crowd, but no RF-S lenses ever happen. EF-M keeps on truckin.

Effectively, this would be a super high fps crop rig. Birders may miss their OVFs, but 20 fps + a more modern sensor might bring them around.
It could happen. *But Canon would need to be super deliberate at this approach not ever moving downmarket, as it will threaten EF-M, folks will bellyache for crop image circle RF lenses, etc.*
3) Canon forces the R7 camp to simply buy a sort of expensive FF RF rig and shoot in crop mode. That requires either a very expensive FF camera buy (think 5D4 money to crop down to something useful resolution wise) or getting a cheaper FF body and acutally losing res from the 7D2 when it is cropped. EF-M lives on.

Not sure either option is great for 7D users.
4) Canon just puts out a 7D3 to shut that camp up for 4-5 more years and defer the problem. Viva EF-M.

5) Canon just makes a big/beefy EF-M rig built for rugged outdoor use and hands 7D users an adaptor. Viva EF-M.

There's a lot of ways to skin this cat, but when you consider the units in Rebels and lower cost products, I think assessing #1 above is more important than placating the 7D users. Envision the future for all crop sensored bodies and make a smart decision about what mount those cameras will get before EF-S is retired.

- A


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 29, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> R7 discussion is the white hot speartip of 'gimme gimme gimme' that dominates proceedings here. It's fine, it's good, but offering a crop RF body is a much bigger call than just pleasing the 7D camp. It cracks open a very important door for Canon. Possibilities ensue:
> [..]
> 
> 5) Canon just makes a big/beefy EF-M rig build for rugged outdoor use and hands 7D users an adaptor. Viva EF-M.
> ...



I would every much like that to happen, the RP showed me that I personally don't need something as chunky as the 7D for a good grip, but something tall enough for my pinky to wrap around. So something slightly taller than the RP+EG-E1 would work for me.


----------



## mjg79 (Jan 29, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> R7 discussion is the white hot speartip of 'gimme gimme gimme' that dominates proceedings here. It's fine, it's good, but offering a crop RF body is a much bigger call than just pleasing the 7D camp. It cracks open a very important door for Canon. Possibilities ensue:
> 
> 1) Canon goes all-in on RF mount for all users (crop and FF) someday, and offer RF-S crop image circle lenses. EF-M is slowly put to pasture.
> 
> ...



Interesting thoughts. I suppose no matter what they do there will be upsides and downsides. 

Even the physical sizes of the mounts come into play. See Sony for example using a small mount - it allows small cameras but apparently makes some lens design harder. Nikon went the other extreme with one giant mount but it places a limit on how small their aps-c cameras can be.

I suspect there is no right or wrong answer - that is what happens in mature markets that start to fragment. From 200-2010 the sensor tech was improving at a crazy rate, year in year out, it made a lot of sense to upgrade, so going from crop -> high spec crop -> full frame while gradually buying up full frame glass seemed natural. Today I just don't see that as the same sort of big deal. People go from brand to brand, they buy what is available for that brand. Fuji has done well with no upgrade path. 

In particular the early part of the century was in a very weird position because all the top level SLR lenses had been designed for full frame, the mounts had been designed for mirrors, it all made sense to buy a 7D and 400/5.6 as an easy way into birding. Today purpose built crop mirrorless mounts offer the chance for really tiny but high quality lenses.

The stats show that most people who buy a crop dslr never buy another lens, they just use it with the kit lens and are happy. For those people size and weight will likely be a big deal which is why I still think Ef-m has a future if Canon want to keep improving it. The pictures you see of the cameras can be deceiving, they are really tiny and wonderful for travel. Maybe I am biased because I bought one and with a couple of lenses find that even on work travel I can have a camera with me where I wouldn't bring anything larger.


----------



## Yaba (Jan 30, 2020)

Hope it well have a real, dedicated control ring and not such a stupid mode switch, where you have to switch the focus ring between control and focus.


----------

