# Canon officially announces the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM Macro



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 13, 2020)

> New Compact, Lightweight Standard Zoom RF lens is Ideal for Users Looking to Add to their RF Lens Collection at an Affordable Price
> *MELVILLE, N.Y., February 12, 2020 –* Whether it’s evoking an emotion, telling a story or reminiscing about a moment in time, visual creators of all levels know that a high quality, trusted lens is necessary to capture the essence and power of an image. Creating for the creators, Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today announced the introduction of its newest RF lens, the RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM standard zoom lens. The new compact and lightweight RF lens will be the perfect addition to a creator’s collection, delivering on quality output at an affordable price.
> 
> “Since the introduction of the EOS R system in late 2018, our goal has always been to develop full-frame mirrorless cameras and lenses to match every skill level of photographers, from entry-level to advanced professionals,” said Kazuto Ogawa, president and chief...



Continue reading...


----------



## -pekr- (Feb 13, 2020)

4-7.1? Useless in my book, sorry ....


----------



## MaximPhotoStudio (Feb 13, 2020)

Canon Japan RF lineup. Translate with Google: https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/


----------



## MaximPhotoStudio (Feb 13, 2020)

Available to preorder for $400 on BH: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1546032-REG/canon_4111c002_rf_24_105mm_f_4_7_1_is.html


----------



## BlueBomberTurbo (Feb 13, 2020)

Should be cheap once the kits start getting parted out!


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 13, 2020)

Affordable is an understatement. I want to see reviews of this lens sooner.


----------



## Gloads (Feb 13, 2020)

Is this the supposed "unique" macro that has been rumored? Was looking forward to a killer RF Macro for copy work, say 100mm F/2 1:2:-(


----------



## Jack Jian (Feb 13, 2020)

-pekr- said:


> 4-7.1? Useless in my book, sorry ....


If a $400 lens for normal consumer with just half a stop slower that the standard f5.6 is problem for you, then God knows. In modern FF, increasing 0.5 stop ISO won't even show a difference in real life & moreover the target buyer won't even bother a bit. Afterall it's a huge win!


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 13, 2020)

Now, we have 3 general purpose lens for R mount. We are not going to see anything starting with 24mm equivalent in M mount. Time to slowly move into R i guess.


----------



## Jethro (Feb 13, 2020)

Gloads said:


> Is this the supposed "unique" macro that has been rumored? Was looking forward to a killer RF Macro for copy work, say 100mm F/2 1:2:-(


Hard to believe this is the one rumoured. I mean it's not even 'unique' - the EF 24-70 f4L has a 70% (ie better) macro add-on.


----------



## preppyak (Feb 13, 2020)

Jack Jian said:


> If a $400 lens for normal consumer with just half a stop slower that the standard f5.6 is problem for you, then God knows. In modern FF, increasing 0.5 stop ISO won't even show a difference in real life & moreover the target buyer won't even bother a bit. *Afterall it's a huge win!*


You had me til there; I'd rather take an exact replica of the 24-105 f/3.5-5.6, which only tacks on about 1/2" length and ~5oz in weight to get a faster lens with the same functional macro.

Its less that f/7.1 is slower and more that, traditionally, kit zooms arent best wide open. So, it might really an f/8 lens to be sharp. Or f/10. At which point...its an outdoor only lens, and even that beggars a cloudy day.


----------



## m4ndr4ke (Feb 13, 2020)

It's probably gonna cost around $150 with the camera. A cheap option for the RP


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 13, 2020)

Gloads said:


> Is this the supposed "unique" macro that has been rumored? Was looking forward to a killer RF Macro for copy work, say 100mm F/2 1:2:-(


I'd just wait...


----------



## padam (Feb 13, 2020)

Not very surprising, the RF 24-105MM f/4L IS USM is much sharper.






Also not much bigger either, although it is heavier and more expensive.


----------



## IcyBergs (Feb 13, 2020)

Love the control ring doubling as a manual focus ring. Wish that was the implementation on all other RFs rather than having 3 rings on every zoom.


----------



## slclick (Feb 13, 2020)

LOL the 7.1 comments popping up all over the interwebs are hilarious. I shoot at f/8-22 all the time. Ever do macro? Landscapes? A long tele with a TC? What happened to the film rules which still hold true about f/8 and be there. the sunny f/16 rule. This lens is not an L series piece of glass and is consumer grade with an appropriate focal length and aperture spread for the price. It is super compact, versatile and probably wonderful optics (we shall see) Any early dismissals are purely internet knee jerk spec sheet bravado. It's clearly not for everyone but it will be a wonderful addition to many peoples kits.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 13, 2020)

What do you suppose center focus macro is?


----------



## ethanz (Feb 13, 2020)

slclick said:


> LOL the 7.1 comments popping up all over the interwebs are hilarious. I shoot at f/8-22 all the time. Ever do macro? Landscapes? A long tele with a TC? What happened to the film rules which still hold true about f/8 and be there. the sunny f/16 rule. This lens is not an L series piece of glass and is consumer grade with an appropriate focal length and aperture spread for the price. It is super compact, versatile and probably wonderful optics (we shall see) Any early dismissals are purely internet knee jerk spec sheet bravado. It's clearly not for everyone but it will be a wonderful addition to many peoples kits.



"WE WANT MORE AFFORDABLE AND LIGHT RF LENSES" 

*Canon gives*

"WE WANT MORE AFFORDABLE AND LIGHT RF LENSES THAT ARE AS SHARP AND FAST AS THE 50 1.2"


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 13, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> What do you suppose center focus macro is?



It somewhere in the press materials, it means the corners get very, very blurry, which is why they turned off autofocus for that range.


----------



## dominic_siu (Feb 13, 2020)

I want a 1:1 macro rather than this, but this tiny lens is good for beginner to step in FF world


----------



## Eowhiskass (Feb 13, 2020)

it was at this moment he knew, he fucked-up


----------



## Eowhiskass (Feb 13, 2020)

ethanz said:


> "WE WANT MORE AFFORDABLE AND LIGHT RF LENSES"
> 
> *Canon gives*
> 
> "WE WANT MORE AFFORDABLE AND LIGHT RF LENSES THAT ARE AS SHARP AND FAST AS THE 50 1.2"


No, 24 and 50 f/2.0 would be enough


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 13, 2020)

slclick said:


> LOL the 7.1 comments popping up all over the interwebs are hilarious. I shoot at f/8-22 all the time. Ever do macro? Landscapes? A long tele with a TC? What happened to the film rules which still hold true about f/8 and be there. the sunny f/16 rule. This lens is not an L series piece of glass and is consumer grade with an appropriate focal length and aperture spread for the price. It is super compact, versatile and probably wonderful optics (we shall see) Any early dismissals are purely internet knee jerk spec sheet bravado. It's clearly not for everyone but it will be a wonderful addition to many peoples kits.


It does depend on the user. This is a consumer lens designed to hit a price point. Its not intended for professional use. There will be a lot of compromises, but for those who do not need wide apertures or the best IQ, it will be just fine. They will be a kit for the R6 and possibly the RP.

For a consumer walk around lens, the semi macro capability is going to be very useful. For demanding macro work, adapting one of the many very fine macro lenses is still the way to go.


----------



## aj1575 (Feb 13, 2020)

What I was thinking about is, what will the price tag of the entry level FF mirrorless Canon camera be, when Canon makes 400$ lenses for the system? Maybe the time to move to FF has come.

The EF-S mount is dead, there will only be EF-M and RF in the future. The EOS M line tops out at 800$, so the entry level EOS R should be between 1000-1200$ (well the RP is already there, it just lacks some features). But that is the price point where the EOS Dxx line was, so it would make sense to move to FF from a EOS Dxx


----------



## slclick (Feb 13, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> It somewhere in the press materials, it means the corners get very, very blurry, which is why they turned off autofocus for that range.


Akin to using a macro add on on a Lensbaby?


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Feb 13, 2020)

All the negative comments about this lens are just crazy. No-one at Canon is saying: "look how clever we are - this is our cutting-edge, best lens we are technically capable of making, at money-no-object levels".

It is clearly a lens built down to a price, for those not at the bleeding edge of photography (be that creative, forensic, or anything in-between), who may want something light, or cheap, or small, or all the above.

If the lens doesn't hit the spot for you - don't get it. Canon have a growing range of better lenses for you, if that's what you need.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Feb 13, 2020)

In the UK, WEX lists the pre order price as £459 I think this will drop after the pre-launch hype to around £399. A nice travel lens for likes of the RP I might even be tempted myself, it will be interesting to what the max magnification is at F4 and F5.6.

395g is a plus

Nice effort Canon


----------



## slclick (Feb 13, 2020)

StoicalEtcher said:


> All the negative comments about this lens are just crazy. No-one at Canon is saying: "look how clever we are - this is our cutting-edge, best lens we are technically capable of making, at money-no-object levels".
> 
> It is clearly a lens built down to a price, for those not at the bleeding edge of photography (be that creative, forensic, or anything in-between), who may want something light, or cheap, or small, or all the above.
> 
> If the lens doesn't hit the spot for you - don't get it. Canon have a growing range of better lenses for you, if that's what you need.


Yes! And furthermore, shouldn't all you wrote be obvious to these complainers from the price? Once again, so many delusional and greedy people wanting a 1DX at a Rebel cost, a 50 1.2 for the price of a Nifty 50.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 13, 2020)

padam said:


> Not very surprising, the RF 24-105MM f/4L IS USM is much sharper.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yikes, and at 7.1 too. 

Doesn’t appear to be THAT much smaller either, although it’s hard to really tell on paper - have to get them in hand. 

I would technically be in the market for a nice compact RF zoom for my RP, but I may wait to see what else is offered first. I’m willing to give up some reach to get a faster lens overall (and a smaller size).


----------



## padam (Feb 13, 2020)

Act444 said:


> Yikes, and at 7.1 too.
> 
> Doesn’t appear to be THAT much smaller either, although it’s hard to really tell on paper - have to get them in hand.
> 
> I would technically be in the market for a nice compact RF zoom for my RP, but I may wait to see what else is offered first. I’m willing to give up some reach to get a faster lens overall (and a smaller size).


It is what it is: basically a FF replacement for the "world's most popular" EF-S APS-C kit lens variants to use with a cheap body like the RP.
What used to be an APS-C DSLR is now slowly progressing towards being a FF mirrorless.


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 13, 2020)

slclick said:


> LOL the 7.1 comments popping up all over the interwebs are hilarious. I shoot at f/8-22 all the time. Ever do macro? Landscapes? A long tele with a TC? What happened to the film rules which still hold true about f/8 and be there. the sunny f/16 rule. This lens is not an L series piece of glass and is consumer grade with an appropriate focal length and aperture spread for the price. It is super compact, versatile and probably wonderful optics (we shall see) Any early dismissals are purely internet knee jerk spec sheet bravado. It's clearly not for everyone but it will be a wonderful addition to many peoples kits.


Yes, I'm sure many forum dwellers think that 7.1 is 2 stops slower than 5.6 - rather than only 2/3rds of a stop. And with lens IS, you won't have any trouble shooting on a cloudy day. Somehow, in the film days we shot at f/8, on ISO 100 film with no lens or body stabilization. We must have been geniuses!


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 13, 2020)

Wow! A $400 lens is not as good as a $1000 lens!

Who would have guessed?


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 13, 2020)

People wanted smaller, lighter, cheaper...but obviously they wanted just as good as an L lens. Really, how stupid is that? This lens is much smaller (15 mm smaller than the consumer EF version and 18 mm smaller than the RF, an also narrower, and much lighter, 130 g lighter than the consumer EF, 305 g lighter than the RF. And $200 less than the EF. And still somehow folks thought that there would be no compromises????? Duh!


----------



## Bangrossi (Feb 13, 2020)

As a R kit lens, 24-105 f4-f7,1 actually significantly better than M system kit lens. The EF-M 15-45 f/4-6,3 translate to 24-70 f6.3-10 on FF. Most people happy with 15-45 even the lens can't do macro.

This lens not for everyone


----------



## David the street guy (Feb 14, 2020)

-pekr- said:


> 4-7.1? Useless in my book, sorry ....



There is no place for this lens in your bag, but that doesn't mean there is no place for it on the market…


----------



## Kit. (Feb 14, 2020)

Don Haines said:


> Wow! A $400 lens is not as good as a $1000 lens!
> 
> Who would have guessed?


If "center focus macro" means that the lens at macro distances is unsharp in the corners, $400 is a bit too much to pay for it.


----------



## victorshikhman (Feb 14, 2020)

I was hating on this lens at first, but you know what... With improvements in ISO, sensor noise reduction and integration of IBIS and lens IS, the f-stop bump on the long end is really not a deal breaker for the target market. I was a prime guy for years, really belittled the 18-135, then picked one up for $60 on letgo a few weeks ago and it's such a joy to use. If a cheaper R body with IBIS is launched with this lens for a sub $1k kit, I'd buy it for my wife as a family/travel cam.


----------



## jansberg (Feb 14, 2020)

padam said:


> Not very surprising, the RF 24-105MM f/4L IS USM is much sharper.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What is the source of these MFTs? - To me the RF f/4-7.1 looks sharp and contrasty wide open - that is good. The chart for the f/4 is of course sharper and a with little more contrast.

I am not the target group for the f/4-7.1 - I am more into using primes with my RP - but I think there is plenty of users for a cheap sharp standard zoom...


----------



## padam (Feb 14, 2020)

jansberg said:


> What is the source of these MFTs? - To me the RF f/4-7.1 looks sharp and contrasty wide open - that is good. The chart for the f/4 is of course sharper and a with little more contrast.


Official MTF charts from Canon


----------



## jansberg (Feb 14, 2020)

padam said:


> Official MTF charts from Canon


Ah, I found them on the canon japan site


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 14, 2020)

David the street guy said:


> There is no place for this lens in your bag, but that doesn't mean there is no place for it on the market…


Exactly!

Right now, of all the cameras in the Canon lineup, the one that appeals to me the most is the M6II. It is small and light! Sometimes that counts more than everything else. Yes, for some people F2 primes are the way to go, but others either can’t afford them, or don’t want to carry the extra weight. An R camera with this lens makes a reasonably sized and priced alternative. Yes, there is a hit to image quality, but it is still head and shoulders above a cell phone


----------



## SteveC (Feb 14, 2020)

Don Haines said:


> Exactly!
> 
> Right now, of all the cameras in the Canon lineup, the one that appeals to me the most is the M6II. It is small and light! Sometimes that counts more than everything else. Yes, for some people F2 primes are the way to go, but others either can’t afford them, or don’t want to carry the extra weight. An R camera with this lens makes a reasonably sized and priced alternative. Yes, there is a hit to image quality, but it is still head and shoulders above a cell phone



It is MUCH better than a cell phone.

Having not made the jump to full frame yet, I can attest it's an excellent camera. The only reason to stop and think about buying it is if you want to both use the viewfinder AND run an external flash. (My other gripe is no flip screen, but that's not an absolute show stopper even for me. I just hope nothing dings up the display.) The sensor is no slouch when it comes to resolution. I put an 100-400 LII on an adapter and got very good results at a zoo the other day (first serious use of that lens, for me); in fact the crop probably helped me in many cases with shooting through fences, etc., because at max zoom I could shoot through the "diamond" in a chain link fence and not capture any of the fence itself.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 14, 2020)

slclick said:


> LOL the 7.1 comments popping up all over the interwebs are hilarious. I shoot at f/8-22 all the time. Ever do macro? Landscapes? A long tele with a TC? What happened to the film rules which still hold true about f/8 and be there. the sunny f/16 rule. This lens is not an L series piece of glass and is consumer grade with an appropriate focal length and aperture spread for the price. It is super compact, versatile and probably wonderful optics (we shall see) Any early dismissals are purely internet knee jerk spec sheet bravado. It's clearly not for everyone but it will be a wonderful addition to many peoples kits.



These days people can only shoot with 100 megapixels, 15 stop IBIS and F0.5 aperture lenses.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 15, 2020)

Rudy got really handsome


----------



## Pape (Feb 15, 2020)

Perfect lens when not making over half meter prints or not shooting action or when wanting bokeh and is ready to do some thinking and leg work to gain it. =95% from peoples


----------



## BillB (Feb 15, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> Yes, I'm sure many forum dwellers think that 7.1 is 2 stops slower than 5.6 - rather than only 2/3rds of a stop. And with lens IS, you won't have any trouble shooting on a cloudy day. Somehow, in the film days we shot at f/8, on ISO 100 film with no lens or body stabilization. We must have been geniuses!


We didn't print very large back then.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 15, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> Somehow, in the film days we shot at f/8, on ISO 100 film with no lens or body stabilization. We must have been geniuses!


I started on ASA 10 color slide film and then upgraded to ASA 25. No ISO back in the 1950's. There was faster B&W film. My use of mostly slow slide film turned out to be a good choice, that Kodachrome film has not faded over the years. 

I think I used lenses that were f/2, or f/2.8, so that helped. I wanted the Canon 7 viewfinder body with the f/0.95 lens, but could not justify the cost since I was just starting on my first job after college, and buying a house was first priority. I did get a Canon FTb in time for my firstborn, using that 50mm f/1.8 lens in a dark hospital with ektachrome ASA 64 film was a problem. I had built a dark room in a corner of my garage / workshop and developed it myself. The emulsion cracked a little, but I still have the film. I need to find it and scan it, its buried in boxes of old photos and slides not yet scanned.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 15, 2020)

I'
m still looking for a walk around lens for my "R", so this could be considered. Right now, my 24-70 L II gets that job, its not really a walk around lens though. 

I'd use the semi macro feature.


----------

