# Patent: Canon RF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 4, 2020)

> It was bound to come to the Canon RF lineup, and now we have a patent for a Canon RF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM. This will go well with the upcoming Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.
> Canon News uncovered this JPO patent.
> *Canon RF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## stefang (Sep 4, 2020)

I have been waiting for this lens to replace my EF version, but if those dimensions are correct, this RF version is even longer than the EF version with RF adapter attached....


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 4, 2020)

As always: It depends on the mix of size, cost, mass, IMAGE QUALITY and MINIMUM FOCUS DISTANCE for me: As stefang remarked, it is a large lens, but if it will provide some 1:3 or 1:2 maximum reproduction ratio at 70mm it might avoid to have a macro lens with you, especially to change lenses in sometimes awkward situations.
For me it will combine well with my EF 70-200 4.0 IS to cover a very lot of situations. Preferably with two bodies (RP + R6?).
For low light you will have RF 1.8 35 macro & RF 2.0 85 macro at a fair price.
The lenses for the "higher end masses" seem to come now!


----------



## MadsLarsen (Sep 4, 2020)

I have been wating for this one! I loooove my EF 24-70 F4, and for most of my work the F2.8 is overkill. Im buying this the day of release, my old EF's rubberbands are almost falling off after 5 good years of use (and abuse)!


----------



## Joules (Sep 4, 2020)

stefang said:


> I have been waiting for this lens to replace my EF version, but if those dimensions are correct, this RF version is even longer than the EF version with RF adapter attached....


TDP lists the measured size of the EF 24-70 4.0 L as 101 - 131 mm. So 125 - 155 mm with the adapter (24 mm extra flange). As the RF version is a patent, you have to subtract the flange distance of the RF mount (20 mm) from the given total lens length, resulting in 115 to 140 mm, meaning it is slightly shorter than the EF version.


----------



## Mike9129 (Sep 4, 2020)

I dont understand this lense really.

what is the reason that someone would opt for a 24-70 f4 over the existing 24-105 f4?
Theyre the same category of lens except one has a better reach and is really highly useable.

is the shorter one that much cheaper?


----------



## MadsLarsen (Sep 4, 2020)

Mike9129 said:


> I dont understand this lense really.
> 
> what is the reason that someone would opt for a 24-70 f4 over the existing 24-105 f4?
> Theyre the same category of lens except one has a better reach and is really highly useable.
> ...



My experience is that i don't use that extra reach and therefore prefere the shorter range. And furthermore the 24-70 has a realy nice macro function, that i use alot!


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 4, 2020)

Mike9129 said:


> I dont understand this lense really.
> 
> what is the reason that someone would opt for a 24-70 f4 over the existing 24-105 f4?
> They're the same category of lens except one has a better reach and is really highly useable.



In the EF mount, the 24-70mm f/4 is $200 cheaper, has 0.7x max magnification* compared to the 24-105mm f/4 mkII's 0.24x, is almost 200g lighter, and is an inch shorter. Apparently those are sufficient advantages to a sufficient number of photographers to keep this lens in production.

The RF lenses might have similar differences.

* I'll skip the 'is this enough to make the lens macro' argument.


----------



## Mark3794 (Sep 4, 2020)

Mike9129 said:


> I dont understand this lense really.
> 
> what is the reason that someone would opt for a 24-70 f4 over the existing 24-105 f4?
> Theyre the same category of lens except one has a better reach and is really highly useable.
> ...



You have to try it, it's sharper than the 24-105 and the macro function is really useful


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 4, 2020)

Mike9129 said:


> I dont understand this lense really.
> 
> what is the reason that someone would opt for a 24-70 f4 over the existing 24-105 f4?
> Theyre the same category of lens except one has a better reach and is really highly useable.
> ...



WIth the EF 24-70 vs 24-105, the 24-70 is significantly sharper in my experience. I'd expect similar with the RF lenses even though the RF 24-105 is pretty good.


----------



## stefang (Sep 4, 2020)

Joules said:


> TDP lists the measured size of the EF 24-70 4.0 L as 101 - 131 mm. So 125 - 155 mm with the adapter (24 mm extra flange). As the RF version is a patent, you have to subtract the flange distance of the RF mount (20 mm) from the given total lens length, resulting in 115 to 140 mm, meaning it is slightly shorter than the EF version.


Thanks. Didn't know that patents include the flange distance in the total lens lenght.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 4, 2020)

Mike9129 said:


> I dont understand this lense really.
> 
> what is the reason that someone would opt for a 24-70 f4 over the existing 24-105 f4?
> Theyre the same category of lens except one has a better reach and is really highly useable.
> ...



The 24-105 is always a worse lens than the 24-70 with more distortion and less sharpness. And the current 24-70 f/4 has a good macro mode and is easy to walk about with.


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 4, 2020)

This would be killer! When do you think the release will be? 2021 hopefully?

-Brian


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 4, 2020)

Ive the EF 24-105 f4L MK1, the EF 24-70mm f4L, the EF 24-70mm f2.8L MKII and the RF 24-105 f4L. The present EF 24-70 f4L is very good at 24mm and 70mm but tends to be softer at 50mm. The EF 24-70mm f2.8L MKII is very good throughout the range with a little pin cushion at one end and barrel at the other easily corrected in photoshop. the RF version of the 24-105mm is way better than either the MK1 or MKII version in EF mount. Canon should be able to deliver a pretty good RF 24-70mm f4L hopefully along the lines of the quality found on the EF 16-35mm f4L but including the macro function. 

Landscape shooters would lap up the RF 16-35 f4L, RF 24-70 f4L & the RF 70-200 f4L and hopefully not at the crazy prices charged for the f2.8 lenses. Put these together with the R5 or R6 and you've got a winning combination.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 4, 2020)

I too appreciate the EF 24-70 f4 for its sharpness and macro mode.
What I really hate is the wobbling of the lens tube in the 70 mm non macro position.Mine doesn't feel like an L lens at all. This I had confirmed by testing used ones, they had the same "defects". Yet, it remains a very good lens, it seems the wobbling has no incidence on sharpness.
I did send it to Canon, got it back with an"everything within the tolerances"...
Meanwhile, my EDC lens is the RF 24-105, optically as good, and "non-wobbling".


----------



## StandardLumen (Sep 4, 2020)

Mike9129 said:


> I dont understand this lense really.
> 
> what is the reason that someone would opt for a 24-70 f4 over the existing 24-105 f4?
> Theyre the same category of lens except one has a better reach and is really highly useable.
> ...



I wouldn't have bought an RF 24-105 if I knew this one might be coming out soon(ish)! The only time I would personally ever use either of these lenses is while traveling. When I'm at home, I use larger lenses, and when I'm traveling I'd rather use the 24-70 over the 24-105 because it is smaller and lighter.


----------



## juststeve (Sep 4, 2020)

I recently purchased the RF 24-105/4 L for my R5 and am quite pleased with the lens. It is sharper than I expected and very quick to focus on the R cameras. It is a fine lens.

But I got the 24-70/4 L in a bundle with my 7D ii and it quickly became an all time favorite lens, both for its optical quality and compact size. If and when Breakthrough Photo gets its EF-RF filterable adapter system out I will get that and that sweet little 24-70/4 along with my two EF wide angle zooms will probably be my main short lenses on the R5. The filterable adapter for the RF cameras sure make using EF lenses, especially the wider one, attractive.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Sep 4, 2020)

I’d be also be extremely interested in this lens; I absolutely love my RF 24-70 2.8, but it pulls my arms off it’s so heavy. Some of my studio shoots can be 10hrs plus and fantastic the 2.8 version is I don’t always need to shoot that wide open.

I did look at the new 24-105 super lightweight and ok as a holiday snapper but I don’t think I would use it for much else other than for light weight travel kit.

Please Canon make the f4 come in at sub 500g if you can and spare our arms


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 4, 2020)

stefang said:


> I have been waiting for this lens to replace my EF version, but if those dimensions are correct, this RF version is even longer than the EF version with RF adapter attached....


This would be an excellent addition (along with the 70-200 F4 ) for Canon's excellent RF ML FF system


----------



## jdavidse (Sep 5, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> I too appreciate the EF 24-70 f4 for its sharpness and macro mode.
> What I really hate is the wobbling of the lens tube in the 70 mm non macro position.Mine doesn't feel like an L lens at all. This I had confirmed by testing used ones, they had the same "defects". Yet, it remains a very good lens, it seems the wobbling has no incidence on sharpness.
> I did send it to Canon, got it back with an"everything within the tolerances"...
> Meanwhile, my EDC lens is the RF 24-105, optically as good, and "non-wobbling".



My RF 24-105 wobbled significantly. So much so that I sold it. I'm not sure I want to buy another one


----------



## jdavidse (Sep 5, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



125mm long, or 4.9 inches. This lens is 32mm longer that the EF version, or 7mm longer than the EF version + adapter. It is the same length as the RF 24-70 2.8. What is the point?


----------



## Jethro (Sep 5, 2020)

jdavidse said:


> 125mm long, or 4.9 inches. This lens is 32mm longer that the EF version, or 7mm longer than the EF version + adapter. It is the same length as the RF 24-70 2.8. What is the point?


Read Joules' comment on the first page ...


----------



## Jethro (Sep 5, 2020)

If/when my existing EF 24-70 f4L goes to the great lens warehouse in the sky, this would be a no-brainer replacement.


----------



## jdavidse (Sep 5, 2020)

Jethro said:


> Read Joules' comment on the first page ...



I did.
Canon USA says the EF 24-70 f/4 is 93mm (3.7 inches)
Add the EF->RF adapter and that's 113mm (4.45 inches)

The RF 24-70 f/4 patent says "Total lens length: 145.52mm 135.76mm 160.05mm"

Adjust for the flange distance (subtract 20mm) that's 125.52, 115.76, 140.05

Assume you took the middle measurement of 115.76 (4.56 inches). That's still a touch longer than the EF 24-70 f/4 w/ the adapter on.

The RF 24-105 f/4 is 107.3 (4.22 inches) long

The RF 24-70 f2.8 is 125.7mm (4.95 inches) long

I was off by 10mm in my earlier post because I took the measurement on the left, assuming that was the retracted length. But assuming it's the middle number of 115mm long, why is it 8mm longer than the 24-105 f/4?

Anyways maybe this patent won't prove to be the final version. But so far, this seems DOA if it's this big.


----------



## Joules (Sep 5, 2020)

jdavidse said:


> I did.
> Canon USA says the EF 24-70 f/4 is 93mm (3.7 inches)
> Add the EF->RF adapter and that's 113mm (4.45 inches)
> 
> ...


It took the measured length for the min and max length from TDP:









Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Lens Specifications and Measurements


Review manufacturer specifications and detailed lab measurements for the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Lens. Compare the specs and measurements of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





There is an 8 mm difference in their measurements VS Canon's statement of 93 mm at the short end. That's probably due to differences in what their are measuring, so let's go with Canon statement, since it is the more favorable one.

EF 24-70 4.0: 93 mm + 24 mm (Adapter) = 117 mm
RF 24-70 4.0: 135 mm - 20 mm (RF flange) = 115 mm

You added only 20 mm for the adapter, but as RF flange distance is 20 mm and EF is 44,you have to add 24 mm (also the stated size of the adapter at TDP). So these lenses are very similar in size at their shortest setting. To the point where we have to look closer at the measurement procedures to definitely call one smaller than the other.

Also, I don't think the three numbers in the patent necessarily cover min and max length. I believe they are just the lengths at the before mentioned focal lengths. It is probably fair to assume the lens will be longest at the longest focal length. But there may be a point between the two extremes where it retracts even further than the 115 mm we discussed. That would explain the supposed difference VS the RF 24-105 mm 4.0.

In any case, I would not worry about this lens being DOA. Even if it were bigger, I expect we would see some capability to make up for it.


----------



## ctk (Sep 5, 2020)

Mike9129 said:


> I dont understand this lense really.
> 
> what is the reason that someone would opt for a 24-70 f4 over the existing 24-105 f4?
> Theyre the same category of lens except one has a better reach and is really highly useable.
> ...


Smaller size. If there's less reliance on software corrections I will trade my 24-105 for one


----------



## SteveC (Sep 5, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> There were two 24-105/4LIS lenses.
> 
> The RF24-105 is excellent. I'm used to shooting a 15-lens EF system but I'm just happy with the RF24-105 any more. It's sharp enough I don't seem to need to switch to a prime to be sharper. The camera's high-enough ISO I don't need a special lens just for candle-light dinner mementos. It's wide enough and long enough. I will grant that when I take it off, it's often to mount the 180mm macro, so maybe 0.7x mag would be nice though.



Can't wait to get mine...Right now I have the RF 15-35 f/2.8L and the EF100-400 II L, so there's this big "hole" in my full frame zoom capability, partially plugged by the EF 40 mm pancake, the 50 mm f/1.4 and the 85 mm f/1.8.


----------



## sanj (Sep 5, 2020)

Mike9129 said:


> I dont understand this lense really.
> 
> what is the reason that someone would opt for a 24-70 f4 over the existing 24-105 f4?
> Theyre the same category of lens except one has a better reach and is really highly useable.
> ...


I understand your sentiment. It boils down to Image quality. Size/Weight etc are not that much of an issue for me.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 6, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> Ive the EF 24-105 f4L MK1, the EF 24-70mm f4L, the EF 24-70mm f2.8L MKII and the RF 24-105 f4L. The present EF 24-70 f4L is very good at 24mm and 70mm but tends to be softer at 50mm. The EF 24-70mm f2.8L MKII is very good throughout the range with a little pin cushion at one end and barrel at the other easily corrected in photoshop. the RF version of the 24-105mm is way better than either the MK1 or MKII version in EF mount. Canon should be able to deliver a pretty good RF 24-70mm f4L hopefully along the lines of the quality found on the EF 16-35mm f4L but including the macro function.
> 
> Landscape shooters would lap up the RF 16-35 f4L, RF 24-70 f4L & the RF 70-200 f4L and hopefully not at the crazy prices charged for the f2.8 lenses. Put these together with the R5 or R6 and you've got a winning combination.



This is the only explanation I've read since the original EF version came out that makes sense. I get it! As part of a less costly trinity, it has a place.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Sep 6, 2020)

I do not actually see an IS group in the drawings of the patent. Is this really an IS lens?


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Sep 6, 2020)

Mike9129 said:


> I dont understand this lense really.
> 
> what is the reason that someone would opt for a 24-70 f4 over the existing 24-105 f4?
> Theyre the same category of lens except one has a better reach and is really highly useable.
> ...


size


----------



## Fast351 (Sep 6, 2020)

BurningPlatform said:


> I do not actually see an IS group in the drawings of the patent. Is this really an IS lens?



On an R5/R6, any lens is an IS lens  In reality, IS is less of a deal breaker on a short lens like this than say a 70-200.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Sep 6, 2020)

Fast351 said:


> On an R5/R6, any lens is an IS lens  In reality, IS is less of a deal breaker on a short lens like this than say a 70-200.


I was not debating the usefulness of IS in a lens. But the topic of the thread mentions IS, which I suspect is an error.


----------



## tmroper (Sep 7, 2020)

Mike9129 said:


> I dont understand this lense really.
> 
> what is the reason that someone would opt for a 24-70 f4 over the existing 24-105 f4?
> Theyre the same category of lens except one has a better reach and is really highly useable.
> ...


It's smaller and lighter, which is good for things like travel and backpacking if those focal lengths work for you. If not, well, that's why there are other lenses out there.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 6, 2020)

Andy Westwood said:


> I’d be also be extremely interested in this lens; I absolutely love my RF 24-70 2.8, but it pulls my arms off it’s so heavy. Some of my studio shoots can be 10hrs plus and fantastic the 2.8 version is I don’t always need to shoot that wide open.
> 
> I did look at the new 24-105 super lightweight and ok as a holiday snapper but I don’t think I would use it for much else other than for light weight travel kit.
> 
> Please Canon make the f4 come in at sub 500g if you can and spare our arms


Ive used my RF24-105mm f4L IS USM for quite a few studio shoots now and was really surprised the first time I used it how good it was. Rent one and try yourself.


----------

