# Correction: Canon is bringing us an RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM Macro



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 10, 2020)

> It looks like I incorrectly assumed the speed of the upcoming RF 24-105mm lens (I should know better). Canon is instead releasing an RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM with 0.4x – 0.5x macro through the entire zoom range.
> *Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM:*
> 
> 13 elements in 13 groups
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Mistral75 (Feb 10, 2020)

f/4-7.1: that must be some kind of record for a trans-standard zoom lens.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 10, 2020)

Seven point one ! ?


----------



## slclick (Feb 10, 2020)

In a world without crop (just imagine and work with me for a minute) this would seem like a very nice kit lens for entry level R bodies. Ok, now back to reality...what makes 28-88 such a great focal length anyway for 1.6 kit glass? 24-105 seems like a much more reasonable general purpose range.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 10, 2020)

f=7.1is a hard one to swallow.

A cloudy day, and you have to pack and go home.....


----------



## usern4cr (Feb 10, 2020)

This seems like a very nice kit zoom for their entry R bodies. It can get very unusually huge magnification at all zoom levels. It's not what I'm looking for, but will probably sell very well at a low cost, particularly for those R bodies without IBIS.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 10, 2020)

7.1 ?! Well I guess if the price is right...


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 10, 2020)

Interested to know when it passes f/5.6, wouldn't be too bad as a walk around lens if 70mm(or even 50mm) is still 5.6 and it's effectively a 24-70 f/4-5.6 with some bonus reach.


----------



## slclick (Feb 10, 2020)

Quackator said:


> f=7.1is a hard one to swallow.
> 
> A cloudy day, and you have to pack and go home.....


Flip that mirror up, stick it on a tripod and stay. This won't be a birders lens, right?


----------



## navastronia (Feb 10, 2020)

Macro shooters: could this lens replace other lenses in your kit, or is the magnification too low?


----------



## dwarven (Feb 10, 2020)

Quackator said:


> f=7.1is a hard one to swallow.
> 
> A cloudy day, and you have to pack and go home.....



Not for macro it isn't. Besides, most macro shooters bring ring lights or flashes. Whenever I shoot macro I'm at f8 - f11. The magnification ratio of this lens is not good though, so it will probably be a cheapo beginner one.


----------



## slclick (Feb 10, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Macro shooters: could this lens replace other lenses in your kit, or is the magnification too low?


Far too low to replace a 1:1 like the 100L . However it would be there where you had the itch just like when carrying the 24-70 f/4L.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 10, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> 7.1 ?! Well I guess if the price is right...


Free?


----------



## SteveC (Feb 11, 2020)

slclick said:


> Flip that mirror up, stick it on a tripod and stay. This won't be a birders lens, right?



Mirror?


----------



## SteveC (Feb 11, 2020)

slclick said:


> Far too low to replace a 1:1 like the 100L . However it would be there where you had the itch just like when carrying the 24-70 f/4L.



And the 100L is f/2.8 (as is the non-L predecessor), not f/7.1


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

Will be very small and light. Macro throughout the zoom range? Could be interesting!

- A


----------



## slclick (Feb 11, 2020)

SteveC said:


> And the 100L is f/2.8 (as is the non-L predecessor), not f/7.1


Who shoots landscape and macro at wide apertures? Sure you can but...


----------



## slclick (Feb 11, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Mirror?


Ha! Good point (obvious I am not in the R world yet)


----------



## SteveC (Feb 11, 2020)

slclick said:


> Who shoots landscape and macro at wide apertures? Sure you can but...



Actually I use wide apertures for macro, but I have a VERY specific use case in mind. I readily acknowledge my situation is unusual.

If f/7.1 works for people, then this sounds like a good thing!


----------



## slclick (Feb 11, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Actually I use wide apertures for macro, but I have a VERY specific use case in mind. I readily acknowledge my situation is unusual.
> 
> If f/7.1 works for people, then this sounds like a good thing!


f/8-16 usually works for most people, but this isn't 1:1 and serious macro, unusual or not will not be the job for this tool.


----------



## dominic_siu (Feb 11, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Macro shooters: could this lens replace other lenses in your kit, or is the magnification too low?


For me I need 1x magnification, so this lens can’t replace a true macro lens


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 11, 2020)

That's pretty dark but looks very compact and the 0.5 macro is great. And if the R6 will have the same 20MP sensor as the 1DX then won't be a problem to raise the ISO with half a stop.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 11, 2020)

It's a foodie macro. But not by candlelight...


----------



## victorshikhman (Feb 11, 2020)

Ouch. Feels like the cripple hammer worked overtime on this one to differentiate with the L lens. You should have just made it about build quality and weather sealing Canon. That would have been enough.


----------



## N-VB (Feb 11, 2020)

Cheap kit lens, for the incomming cheap R6. They target ignorant new entrants customers.
Nothing for us here, not for the gear nerds.


----------



## Jethro (Feb 11, 2020)

slclick said:


> Far too low to replace a 1:1 like the 100L . However it would be there where you had the itch just l*ike when carrying the 24-70 f/4L.*


I initially thought that - but the 24-70 f/4L gives 0.7x, which is usable macro. 0.4x at 105mm is nice-to-have, but not the same thing.


----------



## Jethro (Feb 11, 2020)

victorshikhman said:


> Ouch. Feels like the cripple hammer worked overtime on this one to differentiate with the L lens. You should have just made it about build quality and weather sealing Canon. That would have been enough.


----------



## Jethro (Feb 11, 2020)

N-VB said:


> Cheap kit lens, for the incomming cheap R6. They target ignorant new entrants customers.
> Nothing for us here, not for the gear nerds.


Gee, we were all 'new entrants' to FF at some stage, so you're effectively calling everyone 'ignorant'. Very helpful. Kit lenses, if of decent quality, can be a great buy.


----------



## Canfan (Feb 11, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> 7.1 ?! Well I guess if the price is right...


7.1 seems more like a paper weight can’t be less than 5.6.


----------



## tron (Feb 11, 2020)

It's exactly to the DLA limit of the 45Mpixel R5 but I assume no R5 user will use this (and the lens wouldn't be up to it probably). But It will certainly do fine with R6 though...


----------



## Treyarnon (Feb 11, 2020)

That aperture range sounds more like a lens aimed at a 'rebel' (xxxD) series camera rather than what we usually associate with full frame. 
Does make you wonder what on earth Canon has got up their sleeve...


----------



## N-VB (Feb 11, 2020)

Jethro said:


> Gee, we were all 'new entrants' to FF at some stage, so you're effectively calling everyone 'ignorant'. Very helpful. Kit lenses, if of decent quality, can be a great buy.


95% of peoples never read forums, barelly open the manual, have no clue what f7.1 means, and don't really care. They just buy one camera or another and shoot auto.
If you feel offended, are you in those 95% ?


----------



## Jethro (Feb 11, 2020)

N-VB said:


> 95% of peoples never read forums, barelly open the manual, have no clue what f7.1 means, and don't really care. They just buy one camera or another and shoot auto.
> If you feel offended, are you in those 95% ?


I'd have to care rather more about what you said to be offended. I do care about keeping the level of discussion on these threads at a respectful level, and that doesn't (in my opinion) include describing 95% of the photography gear market as ignorant.


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 11, 2020)

I would much prefer f/4-5.6 and NO macro. But, you know.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Feb 11, 2020)

Wow people don't seem to have a grip on reality tonight. f/7.1, that's only good for a paper weight, a rebel user, ignorant new entrants customers, batting practice...... seriously folks, need to go home if the clouds come out!? Talk to the people that have spent 3k to mount a 100-400 on a 1.4x and shoot at f/8, or a 2x at f/11. Lots of people shooting sports and wildlife with those combinations and quite happy with the results when a 10k option isn't an option - but they (me) must be ignorant for being happy with these results.

If the price is right, the lens small, and image quality decent, this lens will make a lot of people happy.


----------



## slclick (Feb 11, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> I would much prefer f/4-5.6 and NO macro. But, you know.


Perhaps the Macro is not a design goal but a pleasant byproduct. Marketing team says,"Slap it on there!"


----------



## JBSF (Feb 11, 2020)

slclick said:


> f/8-16 usually works for most people, but this isn't 1:1 and serious macro, unusual or not will not be the job for this tool.




Drumsticks now?


----------



## slclick (Feb 11, 2020)

bluenoser1993 said:


> Wow people don't seem to have a grip on reality tonight. f/7.1, that's only good for a paper weight, a rebel user, ignorant new entrants customers, batting practice...... seriously folks, need to go home if the clouds come out!? Talk to the people that have spent 3k to mount a 100-400 on a 1.4x and shoot at f/8, or a 2x at f/11. Lots of people shooting sports and wildlife with those combinations and quite happy with the results when a 10k option isn't an option - but they (me) must be ignorant for being happy with these results.
> 
> If the price is right, the lens small, and image quality decent, this lens will make a lot of people happy.


OMG you read my mind about reading this and thinking about shooting at f/8 with that same combo (this morning) and not once thinking about wanting 'more' just working with what I had.


----------



## slclick (Feb 11, 2020)

JBSF said:


> Drumsticks now?


I like your Big Orange J


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Feb 11, 2020)

slclick said:


> Who shoots landscape and macro at wide apertures? Sure you can but...


I do sometimes. Sometimes having absolutely everything in the frame be tack sharp is not what you're going for...


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 11, 2020)

Why on earth would Canon make an f7.1 lens..?

Not exactly an 11-85mm or anything crazy. Pretty standard FL.

Not sure about this one.


----------



## slclick (Feb 11, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> I do sometimes. Sometimes having absolutely everything in the frame be tack sharp is not what you're going for...
> 
> View attachment 188609


Wait...but then you have created ART! Yep, going there. I know what you mean KLJ, I break more photo 'rules' than I keep. In fact (shhhhh) when shooting macro at narrow apertures I almost always take a shot or three at wide open of the same shot, just for kicks. Gotta love that melty OOF


----------



## Laslen (Feb 11, 2020)

bluenoser1993 said:


> Wow people don't seem to have a grip on reality tonight. f/7.1, that's only good for a paper weight, a rebel user, ignorant new entrants customers, batting practice...... seriously folks, need to go home if the clouds come out!? Talk to the people that have spent 3k to mount a 100-400 on a 1.4x and shoot at f/8, or a 2x at f/11. Lots of people shooting sports and wildlife with those combinations and quite happy with the results when a 10k option isn't an option - but they (me) must be ignorant for being happy with these results.


Tone it down a little bit. You have to be fanboying hard to spin f7.1 as a good lens. Shooting 560mm at f8 is a lot different than 105mm at f7.1.

It'll be cheap and good enough for the current Rebel soccer mom crowd. That's it.


----------



## BillB (Feb 11, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> I would much prefer f/4-5.6 and NO macro. But, you know.


There is the 24-105 f4, so it really comes down to what you want to spend. Canon will have 4 normal range zooms, and quite a few people will still be unhappy.


----------



## slclick (Feb 11, 2020)

Laslen said:


> Tone it down a little bit. You have to be fanboying hard to spin f7.1 as a good lens. Shooting 560mm at f8 is a lot different than 105mm at f7.1.
> 
> It'll be cheap and good enough for the current Rebel soccer mom crowd. That's it.


I think you missed his/her point and just contributed to what they were conveying. In a nutshell... pigeonholing, name calling, demeaning posts. The poster wasn't being a snowflake, I took it as taking the high road, a trait uncommon in our rude world.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Feb 11, 2020)

bluenoser1993 said:


> Wow people don't seem to have a grip on reality tonight. f/7.1, that's only good for a paper weight, a rebel user, ignorant new entrants customers, batting practice...... seriously folks, need to go home if the clouds come out!? Talk to the people that have spent 3k to mount a 100-400 on a 1.4x and shoot at f/8, or a 2x at f/11. Lots of people shooting sports and wildlife with those combinations and quite happy with the results when a 10k option isn't an option - but they (me) must be ignorant for being happy with these results.
> 
> If the price is right, the lens small, and image quality decent, this lens will make a lot of people happy.



Yeah whatever happened to f/8 and be there?


----------



## Laslen (Feb 11, 2020)

slclick said:


> I think you missed his/her point and just contributed to what they were conveying. In a nutshell... pigeonholing, name calling, demeaning posts. The poster wasn't being a snowflake, I took it as taking the high road, a trait uncommon in our rude world.


Is there something negative about being a soccer mom? It wasn't meant as an insult.


----------



## amorse (Feb 11, 2020)

To me that implies a very low cost lens - something you may package with a lower cost body. Maybe they do have an entry level mirrorless full frame in the works? Otherwise, why not use a 3.5-5.6 like EF as the cheaper version?


----------



## slclick (Feb 11, 2020)

Laslen said:


> Is there something negative about being a soccer mom? It wasn't meant as an insult.


I guess not, on reading your post I googled the term, acknowledged my age for some strange reason and found quite a long list of internet content devoted to their exploits!


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Feb 11, 2020)

slclick said:


> I think you missed his/her point and just contributed to what they were conveying. In a nutshell... pigeonholing, name calling, demeaning posts. The poster wasn't being a snowflake, I took it as taking the high road, a trait uncommon in our rude world.


Thanks slclick, exactly the point. Not likely that I will ever own this lens, but even less likely that I will ever belittle someone I see using it, or a rebel for that matter. Laslen makes one good point though, shooting 560mm at f8 is indeed a lot different than 105mm at f7.1, it requires quite a bit more shutter speed to shoot hand held. Sorry, couldn't resist that.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Feb 11, 2020)

slclick said:


> Wait...but then you have created ART! Yep, going there. I know what you mean KLJ, I break more photo 'rules' than I keep. In fact (shhhhh) when shooting macro at narrow apertures I almost always take a shot or three at wide open of the same shot, just for kicks. Gotta love that melty OOF


Rules are great when you're learning to use a camera and/or learning what's going to look good and what's not. But when you know how your camera works, and you know what's going to look nice and what isn't, then rules are silly. It's just artificially limiting yourself.


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 11, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> Interested to know when it passes f/5.6, wouldn't be too bad as a walk around lens if 70mm(or even 50mm) is still 5.6 and it's effectively a 24-70 f/4-5.6 with some bonus reach.


Canon EFM 18-150mm lens reaches f/6.3 by 40mm. It is f/6.3 between 40-150mm lens. It is as slow as typical 15-45mm kit lens. Canon prioritizes size over everything for M lens. This R lens seems to be going same way. There won't be R version of 24-70mm f/4 lens. This looks nice touch with RP or other small R camera over M.


----------



## Jethro (Feb 11, 2020)

ritholtz said:


> Canon EFM 18-150mm lens reaches f/6.3 by the 40mm. It is f/6.3 between 40-150mm lens. It is as slow as typical 15-45mm lot lens. Canon prioritizes size over everything for M lens. This R lens seems to be going same way.


It depends _how_ small it ends up - as an economy lens with that range, small size could be a selling point. Always depending upon the optics being at some level acceptable - but there is a place for small lenses.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Feb 11, 2020)

Viggo said:


> Seven point one ! ?



This is good. No need to us a Variable ND filter when shooting pictures of a full Moon.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 11, 2020)

If that reproduction ratio is accurate then I am really curious about this lens's performance.


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 11, 2020)

Jethro said:


> It depends _how_ small it ends up - as an economy lens with that range, small size could be a selling point. Always depending upon the optics being at some level acceptable - but there is a place for small lenses.


It can pull some M users into R side. Smaller R camera with this lens should be fine compared to M offerings.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 11, 2020)

Jethro said:


> I'd have to care rather more about what you said to be offended. I do care about keeping the level of discussion on these threads at a respectful level, and that doesn't (in my opinion) include describing 95% of the photography gear market as ignorant.



It takes a special person to be offended on behalf of others who never asked for the special favor.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 11, 2020)

Laslen said:


> Tone it down a little bit. You have to be fanboying hard to spin f7.1 as a good lens. Shooting 560mm at f8 is a lot different than 105mm at f7.1.
> 
> It'll be cheap and good enough for the current Rebel soccer mom crowd. That's it.



Anyone who buys cheaper gear than me is an ignorant soccer mom. Anyone who buys more expensive gear is a rich jerk. 

Do I have that right?

(This place is crawling with some real gems).


----------



## Jethro (Feb 11, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> It takes a special person to be offended on behalf of others who never asked for the special favor.


OK …


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 11, 2020)

slclick said:


> Perhaps the Macro is not a design goal but a pleasant byproduct. Marketing team says,"Slap it on there!"


Costs them nothing. Costs the owner only all that focus hunting time, with 3/4 of the focusing range under a foot where 95% never shoot.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 11, 2020)

Jethro said:


> OK …


 The confused defender of soccer moms.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 11, 2020)

Quackator said:


> f=7.1is a hard one to swallow.
> 
> A cloudy day, and you have to pack and go home.....


Methinks you are overplaying it a bit. Most EF-s glass is f/5.6 at the long end and F/7.1 on FF is effectively more than a half stop faster. Most folks with crop frame don't pack up and go home because is gets cloudy. Besides, remember lots of stops of IS with lens plus IBIS.


----------



## Traveler (Feb 11, 2020)

Viggo said:


> Seven point one ! ?





Quackator said:


> f=7.1is a hard one to swallow.
> 
> A cloudy day, and you have to pack and go home.....





Jasonmc89 said:


> Why on earth would Canon make an f7.1 lens..?



If Canon made an equal performing lens for an APSC body then it would be 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5 – very good parameters for a kit lens, don’t you think?

Not every lens is for everyone but if the optical quality is good and the pricing is right then this is gonna be a great lens to start with on an RP-ish body.
And I may consider buying it too as a travel lens due to its weight of less then 400g. 

This lens may show that Canon is not going to make an APSC R body. Which would be great but I’m worried that the majority of people believe that an f/2.8 lens for APSC is better than f/4 lens for FF (which is not). Therefore they’d prefer other brands APSC’s


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

victorshikhman said:


> Ouch. Feels like the cripple hammer worked overtime on this one to differentiate with the L lens. You should have just made it about build quality and weather sealing Canon. That would have been enough.




No, it will be roughly half the price and much smaller and lighter.

That's not a cripple hammer product -- that's an affordable lens.

- A


----------



## Dragon (Feb 11, 2020)

Treyarnon said:


> That aperture range sounds more like a lens aimed at a 'rebel' (xxxD) series camera rather than what we usually associate with full frame.
> Does make you wonder what on earth Canon has got up their sleeve...


FF mirrorless rebels. Why not?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

Treyarnon said:


> That aperture range sounds more like a lens aimed at a 'rebel' (xxxD) series camera rather than what we usually associate with full frame.
> Does make you wonder what on earth Canon has got up their sleeve...




There's no wondering. It will be tinier, lighter and less expensive than the L. That is of value to some folks.

For perspective, from CanonNews (nice graphic but no story linked to it):




- A


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 11, 2020)

It’s barely more than HALF the weight of the f4 L lens that details for $1100.

This promises to be a handy little gem for people who don’t occasionally mind a little ISO in their imaging.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 11, 2020)

Treyarnon said:


> That aperture range sounds more like a lens aimed at a 'rebel' (xxxD) series camera rather than what we usually associate with full frame.
> Does make you wonder what on earth Canon has got up their sleeve...


Remember when big HD TV screens were only for the big spenders?


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> (*Try using an EF 24-something L on a crop body for general travel/walkabout/all-purpose shooting. You will be cursing that the wide end is too long and always reaching for your EF-S ultrawide zoom.)


Which is how I started out as an ignorant newbie... 7D with 24-105L (~38mm on the short end which is still great for street/portrait) and then added the EF-S 10-22mm second hand for land/seascape. Not a bad pair of "kit" lens for 10x zoom.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

Dragon said:


> FF mirrorless rebels. Why not?




Glass, that's why. Too pricey.

Crop image circles lenses are much much less expensive.

I still contend that RF-S lenses (i.e. crop image circle lenses) + crop RF bodies --> RF becoming 'one mount to rule them all' is a better way to go than asking the Rebel market to pony up for pricey (even budget class) FF glass.

- A


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 11, 2020)

Is this CR3?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Which is how I started out as an ignorant newbie... 7D with 24-105L (~38mm on the short end which is still great for street/portrait) and then added the EF-S 10-22mm second hand for land/seascape. Not a bad pair of "kit" lens for 10x zoom.




Me, too! But on a general walkabout, vaca, etc. I was constantly changing out my 10-22 and 24-70. And I do mean constantly.

Once I moved from crop to my 5D, the 24-70 just locked in there and did the job for me. The ultrawide 16-35 only came out rarely, and I usually knew I would need it (interiors, huge vistas, shorelines, etc.).

It turned out later that I realized that I prefer to live in a 24-50 FF sort of space. So on my crop body, those two lenses straddled that range almost 50-50 -- hence all the changeouts. 

- A


----------



## mppix (Feb 11, 2020)

Traveler said:


> If Canon made an equal performing lens for an APSC body then it would be 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5 – very good parameters for a kit lens, don’t you think?
> 
> Not every lens is for everyone but if the optical quality is good and the pricing is right then this is gonna be a great lens to start with on an RP-ish body.
> And I may consider buying it too as a travel lens due to its weight of less then 400g.
> ...



I was about to say this. Ff7.1 FF is still quite a bit better than f5.6 on APS-C and possibly smaller too.
If we go down that road (of small/cheaper ff lenses), it may take a while to see a aps-c R body


----------



## Dragon (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Disagree. Slow means cheaper and lighter, but slow doesn't mean crop RF is coming.
> 
> If a crop sensored RF body was coming, it wouldn't be a 24-something FF sensor sized lens. It would be (a) 15-something* or 18-something and (b) have a much smaller diameter outer barrel to keep size/weight/costs down.
> 
> ...


You clearly didn't read the post you commented on and only reinforced what he said while disagreeing with him .


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Is this CR3?




No, but the spec leak was from a well-known Japanese leak site that tends to have the goods. That said, CR Guy has his own sources and may have corroborated this independently.

However, we still don't have a good enough view of the front element to confirm the max aperture.

Still, Nokivoldemort generally only brings the detailed specs on lenses (like weight, size, etc.) when they truly have the goods. This feels like a CR2.999 to me. Just a matter of time before it's real.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

If this f/7.1 is true, I'll be brave: We'll see an RF something-500 or something-600 for under $2k for sure now. 

I didn't think it would be easily possible to keep it inexpensive with (what I expected to be the slowest on RF) f/6.3 long end, but f/7.1 changes things.

RF 150-600 f/5.6-7.1 IS STM would still have a fairly pedestrian ~ 85mm front element. That could be very inexpensive and light.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

Dragon said:


> You clearly didn't read the post you commented on and only reinforced what he said while disagreeing with him .




Wow! There's a very important "not" in the post I quoted that I completely missed. 

My apologies. I deleted my post.

- A


----------



## mppix (Feb 11, 2020)

This lens brings up a rather good point: the diffraction limited aperture of 90d and m6ii is f5.2. Assuming that Canon wants their entry line to go somewhere, they have two options: (i) make affordable FF bodies and inexpensive glass, or (ii) make "more" affordable aps-c bodies and fast(er) aps-c glass....


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

victorshikhman said:


> Ouch. Feels like the cripple hammer worked overtime on this one to differentiate with the L lens. You should have just made it about build quality and weather sealing Canon. That would have been enough.




Also, you could adapt EF non-L 24-105 with the control ring adaptor and get:

an f/5.6 long end
a dedicated focus ring 
fun RF control ring action
No cripple hammer at work there -- that's inexpensive _and_ fully featured. Have at it.

- A


----------



## Dragon (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Glass, that's why. Too pricey.
> 
> Crop image circles lenses are much much less expensive.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but this lens is smaller, lighter, effectively faster, and I suspect cheaper than the EF-s 15-85 which is the closest match in EF-s glass (and BTW one of the best EF-s lenses). R will have a small and light option and M will be smaller and lighter for those who want the most portability. Once you kill the arbitrary f/5.6 limit that was imposed by classical SLR AF systems, then the issue is simply how much light the lens lets in and thus the lens size is effectively independent of the imager size. Start thinking in photons and let go of f-stop and you have your R-Rebel. DLA is the only real limit, but for the same pixel count, that is also independent of sensor size. Think about it.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> If this f/7.1 is true, I'll be brave: We'll see an RF something-500 or something-600 for under $2k for sure now.
> 
> I didn't think it would be easily possible to keep it inexpensive with (what I expected to be the slowest on RF) f/6.3 long end, but f/7.1 changes things.
> 
> ...


Now you have the formula! I agree, the long zoom will be small and light and I suspect quite sharp wide open (which most of the competition is not). This is one of the nice features of the relatively slow M lenses. You never have to stop them down to get sharp pictures. It looks like that formula is being moved to FF for the mainstream users and I suspect it will work well. DPAF is the killer feature that makes all this possible.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Sorry, but this lens is smaller, lighter, effectively faster, and I suspect cheaper than the EF-s 15-85 which is the closest match in EF-s glass (and BTW one of the best EF-s lenses). R will have a small and light option and M will be smaller and lighter for those who want the most portability. Once you kill the arbitrary f/5.6 limit that was imposed by classical SLR AF systems, then the issue is simply how much light the lens lets in and thus the lens size is effectively independent of the imager size. Start thinking in photons and let go of f-stop and you have your R-Rebel. DLA is the only real limit, but for the same pixel count, that is also independent of sensor size. Think about it.




That's not exactly apples to oranges in your comparison, though. The EF-S 15-85 was effectively a pro feature-set lens design in a crop image circle package. It has Ring USM, FTM mechanical focusing, dedicated focusing ring, distance scale, etc. and it clocks in at nearly twice the weight of this thread's rumored lens. 

A more appropriate comparison (focal lengths be damned) might be one of the EF-M standard zooms -- all plastic, all FBW, relatively de-featured, etc.

I still contend RF-S lenses + crop RF bodies are a better way to go if Rebels are coming to RF. The soccer moms and hockey dads who want to shoot their kid at a sporting event or concert don't want to have to bring a large and expensive lens to reach them. Crop helps both in image circle size and the crop reach itself to let folks go further with less weight, cost, diameter and length.

- A


----------



## brad-man (Feb 11, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Now you have the formula! I agree, the long zoom will be small and light and I suspect quite sharp wide open (which most of the competition is not). This is one of the nice features of the relatively slow M lenses. You never have to stop them down to get sharp pictures. It looks like that formula is being moved to FF for the mainstream users and I suspect it will work well. DPAF is the killer feature that makes all this possible.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> That's not exactly apples to oranges in your comparison, though. The EF-S 15-85 was effectively a pro feature-set lens design in a crop image circle package. It has Ring USM, FTM mechanical focusing, dedicated focusing ring, distance scale, etc. and it clocks in at nearly twice the weight of this thread's rumored lens.
> 
> A more appropriate comparison (focal lengths be damned) might be one of the EF-M standard zooms -- all plastic, all FBW, relatively de-featured, etc.
> 
> ...


Read carefully what I said. Your argument for reach with crop sensors implies smaller pixels and hence a need for larger aperture to avoid DLA issues. The same objective size and aperture diameter will put the same amount of light on a FF sensor with the same pixel count. To get the reach, the lens may have to be longer, but not bigger in diameter and likely not much heavier. The FF lens will be "slower" in f-stop terms, but the IQ should theoretically be the same as the crop camera with the same objective size. My gut says crop frame is going to be relegated to M as SLRs wind down and if Canon is planning on keeping M (which I think they are), then you may seem some interesting developments there as well. One interesting twist is that you can overcome the flange distance issue by adding magnification (that's how you can adapt an FD lens to EF), so R lenses could be used on M with added reach. Not suggesting that will happen, just noting that generally accepted "can't dos" are not necessarily as hard and fast as they are touted to be.

In any case, this is all still in the speculative category and the next year will give us more insight into what Canon's plan is. A piece of the puzzle is going to be relative cost of sensors. If they have made a breakthrough in fab, then FF sensors may be more affordable than in the past and I suspect they would rather get someone started on a FF body so those big, expensive lenses can be fully utilized (and thus be attractive).


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> No, but the spec leak was from a well-known Japanese leak site that tends to have the goods. That said, CR Guy has his own sources and may have corroborated this independently.
> 
> However, we still don't have a good enough view of the front element to confirm the max aperture.
> 
> ...


I need to sell 6d2 kit and get ready for smaller and lighter R gear. There is no need of one M setup (M50) and FF setup (6D2).


----------



## Dragon (Feb 11, 2020)

brad-man said:


> View attachment 188613


. F/22 is a bit over the top even for DPAF which works well to about f/11, but humor aside, that is idea. Interestingly, the aperture of the 40mm f/2.8 would result in about f/10 at 140mm, so still in the realm of feasibility, but the objective would be somewhat bigger and the lens longer but still tiny in classical 140mm terms.


----------



## i_SH (Feb 11, 2020)

I am ashamed of this expected new product from Canon. More than 20 years ago, it released the EF 24-85 / 3.5-4.5 USM with the same 67 mm filter, smaller dimensions and a weight of 380 grams. And with its advertised bayonet mount it produces such junk. It would be better if they re-released what they already had, and don’t need a built-in pseudo-macro, release a couple of macro rings!


----------



## Dragon (Feb 11, 2020)

i_SH said:


> I am ashamed of this expected new product from Canon. More than 20 years ago, it released the EF 24-85 / 3.5-4.5 USM with the same 67 mm filter, smaller dimensions and a weight of 380 grams. And with its advertised bayonet mount it produces such junk. It would be better if they re-released what they already had, and don’t need a built-in pseudo-macro, release a couple of macro rings!


Not sure what your point is. The 24-85 doesn't have IS and 85 is notably less than 105, but the size and weight are similar. The 24-85 is soggy in the corners unless you stop it way down and you have no idea what the IQ of this new lens will be. If it produces lousy images, that is the time to be ashamed. If it produces great images, then maybe pride would be in order. I suspect it will be good enough to support the 45MP imager in the R5 and that will make it a LOT better than the old 24-85.


----------



## Traveler (Feb 11, 2020)

i_SH said:


> I am ashamed of this expected new product from Canon. More than 20 years ago, it released the EF 24-85 / 3.5-4.5 USM with the same 67 mm filter, smaller dimensions and a weight of 380 grams. And with its advertised bayonet mount it produces such junk. It would be better if they re-released what they already had, and don’t need a built-in pseudo-macro, release a couple of macro rings!


Well, that “pseudo-macro” function can be handy for a lot of beginners. Remember beginners often tend to buy just one lens to start with. And a lot of people are disappointed that their “expensive” camera can’t take close-up’s unlike their cellphones. 
If they get serious about it, they can buy a proper macro lens later. And spend thousands of dollars for other lenses as many of us do


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 11, 2020)

SteveC said:


> And the 100L is f/2.8 (as is the non-L predecessor), not f/7.1


Here are some shots taken using 100mm Macro either at f11 or lower with last photo of Hump nosed pit viper shot on 5D mk 4. Unless someone is using macro lens for portraits I dont know anyone who uses macro lenses at apertures wider than f/8. 


Amphiesma beddomei (2) by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr


IMG_9413 by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr


IMG_9527 by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr


Coelognathus helena monticollaris by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr


Hump nosed pit viper by Chaitanya Shukla by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr


----------



## Pape (Feb 11, 2020)

Will be amazing light weight ,and razor sharp on 105mm what others arent.
And first ever made 0,5x focus breath free lense for focus stacking. If focusin works with manual override and it autos after that.
With hand hold R6.R5 super focus stack crop burst mode this will be amazing 
I am already using manual override when shooting focus stack so can get start point little front of bug. other ways closest point may stay unsharp if its very round like head.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 11, 2020)

Canon now has;

RF 24-70 F2.8
RF 28-70 F2.0
RF 24-105 F4.0
RF 24-105 F4-7.1

If one of them doesn't meet your needs, surely there's one that does already - in a mount that is less than two years old.

F7.1 means a lot of ISO 6400 shooting. So what? in most cases: any modern Canon sensor produces ISO 6400 images that are more than adequate for the average consumer.

I've shot a lot with the M's and yes, you do a lot F6.3 shooting. I didn't;

a) go home when it was cloudy
b) stop shooting when the sun went down
c) shake with fear at the thought of shooting indoors.

and this is what? 1/3 - 2/3's of a stop better than the M's running at F/6.3?

While sure, you can't get 100% blowups from F7.1 and ISO 6400 - you can get more than good enough images though.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 11, 2020)

Traveler said:


> Well, that “pseudo-macro” function can be handy for a lot of beginners. Remember beginners often tend to buy just one lens to start with.



There are plenty of beginners who never upgrade their lenses, plenty of beginners who buy a two or three lenses kit, and plenty who do both.



Traveler said:


> And a lot of people are disappointed that their “expensive” camera can’t take close-up’s unlike their cellphones.



There is sufficient demand for background blur for cellphone manufacturers to fake the effect. Buyers might be disappointed their FF camera and lens can't deliver that.

I hope Canon did the market research on this.



Traveler said:


> If they get serious about it, they can buy a proper macro lens later. And spend thousands of dollars for other lenses as many of us do



People who upgrade lenses, esp for that much money, are a minority. With market trends being what they are, Canon shouldn't bet on that group gaining significantly more membership.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 11, 2020)

Quackator said:


> f=7.1is a hard one to swallow.
> 
> A cloudy day, and you have to pack and go home.....


With a three stop real world image stabilization effect this translates to f/2.4 equivalence for the "light gathering efficiency".
I think it fails while trying to get reasonably sharp images of objects in motion or if you need some separation between object and background!

So I am with you: f/7.1 is hard to swallow - a setup with two RPs and the RF 35 and a hypothetical RF 100 2.0 IS Macro would be my favorite highly flexible companion.


----------



## Pape (Feb 11, 2020)

canonnews said:


> Canon now has;
> 
> RF 24-70 F2.8
> RF 28-70 F2.0
> ...


And dont forget 8 stop image stabilation!


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

i_SH said:


> I am ashamed of this expected new product from Canon. More than 20 years ago, it released the EF 24-85 / 3.5-4.5 USM with the same 67 mm filter, smaller dimensions and a weight of 380 grams. And with its advertised bayonet mount it produces such junk. It would be better if they re-released what they already had, and don’t need a built-in pseudo-macro, release a couple of macro rings!




Apparently re-releasing a lens someone can't stand would do better than the one we're talking about here. Sure. That tracks.

It's amazing how a number -- 7.1 in this case -- has folks clutching their pearls so hard.

It's like everyone forgot that in the fifteen months since EOS R came out, we already have a trinity of f/2.8L IS zooms, some skull-splittingly sharp L primes and a toy howitzer of an f/2 zoom.

The high end got a ton of fan service with all the initial lens offerings. And that will surely continue. But small, light and inexpensive get their turn now. I see nothing wrong with that.

- A


----------



## SteveC (Feb 11, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Here are some shots taken using 100mm Macro either at f11 or lower with last photo of Hump nosed pit viper shot on 5D mk 4. Unless someone is using macro lens for portraits I dont know anyone who uses macro lenses at apertures wider than f/8.
> 
> 
> Amphiesma beddomei (2) by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr
> ...



Personally, I'd only want to take macros of pit vipers with a 3,000 millimeter lens or greater.

(Edit: Unless, of course, there's zoo glass between me and the venomous beastie.)

(Another Edit:

I routinely shoot macro at f/5.6, but in my case I'm shooting a fairly flat object through a layer of plastic that's often scratched. f/5.6 generally puts the object in focus but the scratches out of focus. But, as I have said upthread, my situation is extremely unusual.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

Traveler said:


> Well, that “pseudo-macro” function can be handy for a lot of beginners. Remember beginners often tend to buy just one lens to start with. And a lot of people are disappointed that their “expensive” camera can’t take close-up’s unlike their cellphones.
> If they get serious about it, they can buy a proper macro lens later. And spend thousands of dollars for other lenses as many of us do




+1.

0.7x Macro on the EF 24-70 f/4L IS USM is a great feature. I own that lens and use the macro often (impromptu handheld macro on hikes and walkabouts), even though I also own the EF 100L.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Here are some shots taken using 100mm Macro either at f11 or lower with last photo of Hump nosed pit viper shot on 5D mk 4. Unless someone is using macro lens for portraits I dont know anyone who uses macro lenses at apertures wider than f/8.




Point taken, I almost never use my 100L (at macro distances) at f/2.8. It's always stopped down quite a bit.

But some might shoot a 100 macro a hair wider than f/8 (say f/5.6 or so, where the lens is sharpest) for focus stacking.

- A


----------



## .jan (Feb 11, 2020)

gosh that would have been so cool as a f/5.6 but f/7.1 seems a bit too dark for most applications.


----------



## freejay (Feb 11, 2020)

Well f8 would be one stop darker than 5.6. So 7.1 is about half a stop? It ("7.1") looks bad but seems to be not much difference to the typical 5.6...


----------



## Pape (Feb 11, 2020)

.jan said:


> gosh that would have been so cool as a f/5.6 but f/7.1 seems a bit too dark for most applications.


I bet nobody never bought EF 24-105 f5,6 it got even one stop worser IS


----------



## Diltiazem (Feb 11, 2020)

Small, light and cheap (hopefully) in the most commonly used focal range. That's the idea of the lens. It will suit many people . A lot of people shoot mostly at f/8. With 5 stops of IS it won't be any worse than 24-70/2.8 without IS for low light except for moving subject. 
If anyone thinks f/7.1 is not good for creating amazing images, artistic or not, I will ask them to think a little deeper about their own knowledge.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Point taken, I almost never use my 100L (at macro distances) at f/2.8. It's always stopped down quite a bit.
> 
> But some might shoot a 100 macro a hair wider than f/8 (say f/5.6 or so, where the lens is sharpest) for focus stacking.
> 
> - A


For focus stacking(macro) photographers do use dedicated lenses while this RF 24-105mm is a lens for the occasions when carrying macro lens is not an option. I can see this as a good lens for travelling with decent macro capabilities covering enviornment(24mm) to closeups(105mm).


----------



## LDS (Feb 11, 2020)

Quackator said:


> f=7.1is a hard one to swallow.
> A cloudy day, and you have to pack and go home.....



People will crank up the ISO.

I was thinking more about doing portraits at 105mm... it could be hard to teach people about DOF with such aperture.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 11, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Personally, I'd only want to take macros of pit vipers with a 3,000 millimeter lens or greater.
> 
> (Edit: Unless, of course, there's zoo glass between me and the venomous beastie.)
> 
> ...


Depending on the mood of snake and toxicity of venom I do use a sheet of acrylic mounted to front of lens to protect my hands. Only times I shoot wider than f/8 is when I am working in lab with dead specimen and I need to create stack of characters which tend to be quite small requiring high mag ratios. Like you said reproducing flat objects and art does need to be photographed at wide apertures but that use case I belive is a small niche among macro lens owners. Most commonly I see photographers using macro lenses for in field subjects and flowers.


----------



## sulla (Feb 11, 2020)

While I think f/7.1 ist very ok for a (dedicated) macro lens (for sufficient DOF), I consider it unacceptable for a general purpose lens. Perhaps ok in bright sunlight, but I would be too limited in lower-light situations or even already indoors.


----------



## sulla (Feb 11, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Macro shooters: could this lens replace other lenses in your kit, or is the magnification too low?


tooooooooo low


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 11, 2020)

Laslen said:


> Tone it down a little bit. You have to be fanboying hard to spin f7.1 as a good lens. Shooting 560mm at f8 is a lot different than 105mm at f7.1.
> 
> It'll be cheap and good enough for the current Rebel soccer mom crowd. That's it.


Do Rebel soccer moms need full frame?


----------



## wanderer23 (Feb 11, 2020)

Def not a lens for me, but very interesting! Assuming this will be priced quite low, maybe great for food Instagramers and youtubers?


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 11, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Here are some shots taken using 100mm Macro either at f11 or lower with last photo of Hump nosed pit viper shot on 5D mk 4. Unless someone is using macro lens for portraits I dont know anyone who uses macro lenses at apertures wider than f/8.
> [..]



Most, if not all my macro shots are in the f/8-f/11 range, but sometimes a narrower aperture also works. Here's a picture by Jared Polin from his Nikkor Noct 58mm f/0.95 review, it's shot at f/1.2:


----------



## AlexKireyev (Feb 11, 2020)

Никому не нужное стекло, проще купить 24-105 4 L ef


----------



## Andy Westwood (Feb 11, 2020)

Well the lens is a nice compact size and a comfortable weight keeping it positive, just a pity about F7.1 but I think it will work on the RP as a cheap kit.

I wouldn’t think it’s going to be a lot of money, as already mentioned it will be interesting discover at what magnification it passes F5.6

I’m sure it will sell most consumers and many enthusiasts won’t be as bothered about F7.1 as we are.


----------



## Cinto (Feb 11, 2020)

SteveC said:


> And the 100L is f/2.8 (as is the non-L predecessor), not f/7.1


Pretty hard to shoot macro at 2.8 unless your focus staking.


----------



## uri.raz (Feb 11, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Here are some shots taken using 100mm Macro either at f11 or lower with last photo of Hump nosed pit viper shot on 5D mk 4.



Great photos!



Chaitanya said:


> Unless someone is using macro lens for portraits I don't know anyone who uses macro lenses at apertures wider than f/8.



IIRC, I've read the 100mm f/2.8L doubles as a portraits lens.

Question is who is the target audience for a 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM 0.4-0.5x macro lens. As a walk around lens, e.g. something I'd take to shoot a family event, I think f/7.1 is too slow, and I would rather buy an RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. Maybe it was designed for macro, but not having shot any macro myself, I wouldn't presume to say whether its fit for that purpose or not.


----------



## tomri (Feb 11, 2020)

Canon marketeers probably think that many of their prospective customers do not understand the meaning of those "f.." numbers at the front of the lens, and they are probably right when it comes to consumers. Everybody can however see the advantage of a long zoom range combined with small size in a shop. This also shows that Canon is aiming at consumers now with the R series. Makes me wonder about EOS M more than anything.

Problem only is that consumers are using smartphones nowadays so the only prospective customers left for any dedicated camera are enthusiasts who a) know f-stops and b) already own decent gear. Problem not solved.


----------



## .jan (Feb 11, 2020)

Pape said:


> I bet nobody never bought EF 24-105 f5,6 it got even one stop worser IS


Yeah and like 3 people will buy this one alone. Both are kit lenses but f/7.1? Come on..


----------



## Woody (Feb 11, 2020)

A 400g compact and lightweight 24-105 mm lens to pair with a cheap and lightweight R6. I'm in.


----------



## wockawocka (Feb 11, 2020)

'Macro's for the poorest of poor people'

(Turns out to be their biggest margin maker)


----------



## Joules (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Also, you could adapt EF non-L 24-105 with the control ring adaptor and get:
> 
> an f/5.6 long end
> a dedicated focus ring
> ...


It is worth noting though how compact this lens here is. Numbers are RF 24-105mm 4.0-7.1 | EF 24-105mm 3.5-5.6

Length: 89 mm | 104 mm (+ 24 mm Adapter) 
Diameter: 77 mm | 83 mm
Weight: 395 g | 525 g

So it's not like you aren't also getting something exclusive with this zoom.


----------



## Joules (Feb 11, 2020)

Canon: *introduces class leading unique and high end lenses*

Commenters: 'We need affordable lenses! This stuff is too huge!'

Canon: *introduces affordable and small lenses*

Commenters: 'Shame! Junk! *******!!!'


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 11, 2020)

Traveler said:


> If Canon made an equal performing lens for an APSC body then it would be 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5 – very good parameters for a kit lens, don’t you think?


Yes! Had to get to page 4 before somebody finally said that. The APS-C world is full of f/4-5.6 kit lenses and as an equivalent this is _faster_!

Regarding the 0.4/0.5x macro which some have declared to be useless - this is actually very good for a macro _zoom_. Only the EF 24-70/4L beats it (and that has its own problems with focus shift at macro distances). My considerably more expensive Zeiss 100mm f2 Makro-Planar Milvus, which is a prime of course, is also 'only' 0.5x - but I'm greatly looking forward to using it on an R5 (with IBIS!!) later this year!

One issue for this combination of specifications is that focusing at near-macro distances through an f/7.1 lens has traditionally been difficult due to the combination of a dark viewfinder and the focal plane not being clear enough. But this should largely be solved with an EVF.


----------



## TonyPM (Feb 11, 2020)

f7.1 Is what I use for landscape on one if my cameras. (Apsc with 17-50 2.8).

If it's cheap and does a reasonable job, why not as a kit lens.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 11, 2020)

uri.raz said:


> Great photos!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks, this 24-105mm might be full frame equivalent of 18-55m kit lens with added benifit of macro. EF 24-70mm Macro and Sigma 17-70mm Macro are good examples of general purpose lens with decent macro capabilities.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 11, 2020)

Quackator said:


> f=7.1is a hard one to swallow.
> 
> A cloudy day, and you have to pack and go home.....



Lol have you ever taken photographs before?



slclick said:


> Flip that mirror up, stick it on a tripod and stay. This won't be a birders lens, right?



I've shot a significant portion of my bird photographs at f/10 (500 f/4+2x stopped down a touch) and I live in one of the cloudier places in the world, so I wouldn't worry either way 



slclick said:


> Who shoots landscape and macro at wide apertures? Sure you can but...



On the other hand, I shoot a lot (if not most) of my macro shots wide open, at f/2.8, because it just looks nicer that way (excluding extreme magnification shots with the MP-E). Cluttered backgrounds don't make for nice insect portraits imho!

Anyway, no surprise this spec meets with some negative reaction here, but given the clamour for 'affordable RF lenses', it should come as no surprise. A true kit lens, no doubt very versatile, lightweight and cheapish, will be good for beginners.


----------



## uri.raz (Feb 11, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Thanks, this 24-105mm might be full frame equivalent of 18-55m kit lens with added benifit of macro.



For depth of field, f/7.1 on FF is better than f/5.6 on 1.6x crop.

For diffraction, the point isn't sensor size, but rather pixel size. FF pixel size seems to be two steps behind crop pixel size, its a matter of time until f/7.1 would be too small.

For AF, the AF sensor doesn't care about sensor size. f/5.6 will AF faster & better than f/7.1


----------



## sulla (Feb 11, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Most, if not all my macro shots are in the f/8-f/11 range, but sometimes a narrower aperture also works. Here's a picture by Jared Polin from his Nikkor Noct 58mm f/0.95 review, it's shot at f/1.2:
> View attachment 188614


wonderful shot. But it isn't exactly a macro photo, is it?


----------



## ved112dei (Feb 11, 2020)

Any news on EOS R5 announcement, as per canon rumours date is 13 Feb or is it to be announced around CP+ ?


----------



## BillB (Feb 11, 2020)

Traveler said:


> This lens may show that Canon is not going to make an APSC R body. Which would be great but I’m worried that the majority of people believe that an f/2.8 lens for APSC is better than f/4 lens for FF (which is not). Therefore they’d prefer other brands APSC’s


As far as exposure is concerned f2.8 on an APS-C lens is the same as f2.8 on a FF lens and 4.0 on a FF lens is the same as 4.0 on an aps-c lens. So, for exposure, f7.1 on the 24-105 will be 2/3 of a stop slower than F5.6 on an aps-c.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Feb 11, 2020)

I am still using my 6D and for my mid-range I use an ancient piece of old junk...a 50 compact macro. Compact, and sharp for landscape. Canon has never come out with a replacement 50mm that interested me including the 24-70s. Nor do I want three zooms in my bag. Should I go to mirrorless I would continue using this lens because I still see nothing I would want to replace it with. Especially this lens! For the lack of a good and affordable 50mm lens I would consider going with Nikon. For all their lack of lenses, at least they do have a good 50mm lens, even if over-priced. Canon is coming out with a fine line of RF lenses, and it will be interesting to see what if any thing they do with a 50mm, and I don’t me the phenomenal RF50 f1.2, way overkill for landscape use, at least for me.

I am sure the new 24-105 is a fine lens for many users, just not one I would want.


----------



## Joules (Feb 11, 2020)

BillB said:


> As far as exposure is concerned f2.8 on an APS-C lens is the same as f2.8 on a FF lens and 4.0 on a FF lens is the same as 4.0 on an aps-c lens. So, for exposure, f7.1 on the 24-105 will be 2/3 of a stop slower than F5.6 on an aps-c.


The result is what matters though, not the exposure settings required to get it.

A FF sensor collects 2.56 times as much light as an APS-C sensor. So if you take an image on FF and one on APS-C, both with the same framing and exposure setting, you'll see a bit over 1 stop less noise in the FF image. Which is why saying a f/7.1 lens on FF is horrible is silly, because that's still more light than you get at f/5.6 on APS-C and that's what the vast majority of people use.

I see this lens as a sign that Canon is indeed planning to push FF down in price to the point where it replaces the higher end APS-C bodies.


----------



## Avenger 2.0 (Feb 11, 2020)

Will be waiting for the one point twenty-one version. Want to capture that moment when the lightning strikes


----------



## Kit. (Feb 11, 2020)

Joules said:


> I see this lens as a sign that Canon is indeed planning to push FF down in price to the point where it replaces the higher end APS-C bodies.


I still don't see how this is better than, say, G5X II with DPAF would have been.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 11, 2020)

canonnews said:


> Canon now has;
> 
> RF 24-70 F2.8
> RF 28-70 F2.0
> ...


You missed one out.

Canon already has the RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM so why make a RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 IS USM? This lens I have and its an "OK" walk around lens if you only want to take one lens. It does heavily vignette at the wide end but in most situations is correctable in Lightroom. Not the best piece of optics from Canon but then at £ 799.00 it was never going to be. On the other hand the RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM is a step-up from the EF version and optically quite good. All comes down to your budget, no such thing as a free lunch!


----------



## slclick (Feb 11, 2020)

LDS said:


> People will crank up the ISO.
> 
> I was thinking more about doing portraits at 105mm... it could be hard to teach people about DOF with such aperture.


It would be hard to teach surgery with a pair of Vise Grips.


----------



## slclick (Feb 11, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Do Rebel soccer moms need full frame?


That's not up to us.


----------



## PerKr (Feb 11, 2020)

4-7.1 on FF might well be better than 3.5-5.6 on APS-C if we are talking equivalent aperture in terms of depth of field and image noise. But who really uses an 18-55/3.5-5.6 or 24-105/4-7.1 and then worries about depth of field? Or indeed image noise? let alone "equivalent aperture"? It's going to be the next 18-55/3.5-5.6; a lens most have but nobody really wants and one that everyone will advice you to upgrade from as soon as possible. The one positive I suppose will be the price.


----------



## Pape (Feb 11, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> For focus stacking(macro) photographers do use dedicated lenses while this RF 24-105mm is a lens for the occasions when carrying macro lens is not an option. I can see this as a good lens for travelling with decent macro capabilities covering enviornment(24mm) to closeups(105mm).


macro photographers use macro rails with tripod . dedicated macro lenses got all some focus breathing what isnt optimal for focus stacking . This new zoom should be better with that problem i hope.


----------



## JustUs7 (Feb 11, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Do Rebel soccer moms need full frame?



It’s not about need. It’s about disposable income. Around here, soccer moms have it and like to take pictures of their kiddos. 

As a rank amateur, my issue with this lens is that I see the reach as just enough to capture my kids in the school play or orchestra concert. At 7.1, I’d have to crank up the ISO to get decent exposure, but I’m guessing shutter speed would be attempted as well, which would result in frustration attempting to capture decent images while kids are moving on stage. 

I think it could be used to take good pictures, but one should know a little bit about settings to get them. I say this as someone who’s come back from events disappointed with picture results. 

Cost no object and knowing what I know now, I’d get the RF 70-200 2.8 for such occasions (and indoor soccer games). But five kids gotta eat, or they won’t be around to take pictures of.


----------



## hoodlum (Feb 11, 2020)

freejay said:


> Well f8 would be one stop darker than 5.6. So 7.1 is about half a stop? It ("7.1") looks bad but seems to be not much difference to the typical 5.6...



It is exactly 2/3 stop darker than f5.6, so 1/3 stop brighter than f8. It would be similar to f4 with m43


----------



## Traveler (Feb 11, 2020)

BillB said:


> As far as exposure is concerned f2.8 on an APS-C lens is the same as f2.8 on a FF lens and 4.0 on a FF lens is the same as 4.0 on an aps-c lens. So, for exposure, f7.1 on the 24-105 will be 2/3 of a stop slower than F5.6 on an aps-c.


There’s one more thing you can change. The ISO. 

Full Frame: 105mm, f7.1, 1/100s, ISO=250
APSC: 65mm, f4.4, 1/100s, ISO=100

both will produce an equal angle of view, equal depth of field, equal exposure and even equal amount of noise on same generation sensors.
The lenses would be probably even very similar in weights and sizes.

The main difference between FF and APSC is actually the availability of native lenses.
And ISO.


----------



## [email protected] canon rumors (Feb 11, 2020)

could be a pretty low profile and creative lens with that small bite of "macro" 
Nice 4 holidays.


----------



## JustUs7 (Feb 11, 2020)

Cinto said:


> Pretty hard to shoot macro at 2.8 unless your focus staking.



I did my first focus stack with the RP and DPP. Mounted on a tripod. Used the 35mm 1.8 set to 2.8 I believe. Took 20 images. No rails. Made an 8x10 for my wife for Valentine’s Day. Not pro quality, but I’m happy with it for a first attempt.

I think I know what to fix. Point is, the RP makes focus stacking almost easy from a tripod.


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 11, 2020)

slclick said:


> That's not up to us.



Do they know the difference?


----------



## telemaque (Feb 11, 2020)

The specs is one thing. Obviously those f 4-7.1 are not really exciting ones... f 7.1 is not going to make us run to the shop when official arrival is announced. But let's wait to use and see the image quality. With my first body, Canon 350D, I had a 28-135mm that also was not very promising and at the end the quality is much more than decent in a very light and compact lens.

And this was my entry into Canon's world, where now I have bought several L lenses. Last example, the 35mm IS f2 is a FABULOUS lens, people say it is not a L one...Who cares? The image quality is absolutely great and IS very welcome. Here I recommend to wait and see the real pictures people are going to get with it. The real GOOD NEWS here is that Canon has decided to be serious in mirrorless world and new bodies and lenses are in the pipe. This lens seems to be an entry lens. Well it might convince young people, alike me some 20 years ago, to join Canon's environment.

I have been complaining about the lack of reaction of Canon during the last years, so I am today happy to see Canon has heard the message. Honestly, in the coming months if R5 or R6 have serious video quality image and well thought video menu I will be the most satisfied customer on earth. So let's see the image quality of this lens before being unhappy about it.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

Joules said:


> Canon: *introduces class leading unique and high end lenses*
> 
> Commenters: 'We need affordable lenses! This stuff is too huge!'
> 
> ...




Perfect. This is the point I was trying to make earlier. 

Just wait until solid / small / inexpensive non-L primes shows up at 'just' f/2.8. Or that the superzoom -600mm everyone has been screaming for gets this f/7.1 treatment. Folks will meltdown.

- A


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Feb 11, 2020)

This sounds like a horrible idea. Unless it's filthy cheap, I can't imagine anyone that would want such a narrow aperture lens when so many other options are already available.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 11, 2020)

slclick said:


> Flip that mirror up, stick it on a tripod and stay. This won't be a birders lens, right?



Nope, but it isn't an allrounder kit lens as well.
Cameras will crank up Auto-NoISO (pun intended) or pop up
built-in flashes. People will still show movement as long as 
they are alive, and the use of this lens is rather limited than allround.


----------



## slclick (Feb 11, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> Do they know the difference?


Not going to judge.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Regarding the 0.4/0.5x macro which some have declared to be useless - this is actually very good for a macro _zoom_.




Working distance will be important. If the 24-70 f/4L IS had a macro mode at 70mm that needed to be within (foggy memory, I'm estimating) 6" or so of the subject, get ready for shading the hell out of your subject with the lens at 24mm!

Even Canon's own press shots shows how 'neato while impractical' the macro mode may be with this thing on the wide end.
​
As I said, I love my EF 24-70 f/4L IS macro mode, but not like the above. I'm guessing 0.4x @ 105 will get much much much more use than 0.5x at 24mm with this new lens.

- A


----------



## canonnews (Feb 11, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> You missed one out.
> 
> Canon already has the RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM so why make a RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 IS USM?



for that I have a 1000 word demonstration for you. this is taking from our post on the subject over at canonnews and modified just for you 





Nuff said? The scale is approximate but should be very close. Look at the size of that freaking lens.

/thread.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

telemaque said:


> The specs is one thing. Obviously those f 4-7.1 are not really exciting ones... f 7.1 is not going to make us run to the shop when official arrival is announced. But let's wait to use and see the image quality.




But we'll see the *price* before the IQ, and I think that's the ball game with this lens. If this thing sneaks in around $399, folks will be pretty pumped. If it's $599 like the EF non-L version, folks will be less excited (and possibly consider adapting the EF for reasons I mentioned earlier).

I'm guessing that this will be in the $499 neighborhood, but I could be wrong.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

canonnews said:


> for that I have a 1000 word demonstration for you. this is taking from our post on the subject over at canonnews and modified just for you
> 
> View attachment 188616
> 
> ...




Agree in principal that this appears to be a play for small and light, but WTH didn't they go 24-70 f/7.1 and make something truly small? I won't bellyache about f/7.1, but people need to see this lens and go 'Oh, _*that's*_ why they did that.' Saving 20mm or so doesn't really scream that out to me.

I get that this will be far less expensive than the L (and that's ultimately why this lens is happening), but I think a yet smaller design might move more units.

- A


----------



## Kit. (Feb 11, 2020)

canonnews said:


> for that I have a 1000 word demonstration for you. this is taking from our post on the subject over at canonnews and modified just for you
> 
> View attachment 188618
> 
> ...


So, this is a lens that makes the L lens look pretty reasonable?


----------



## canonnews (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Agree in principal that this appears to be a play for small and light, but WTH didn't they go 24-70 f/7.1 and make something truly small? I won't bellyache about f/7.1, but people need to see this lens and go 'Oh, _*that's*_ why they did that.' Saving 20mm or so doesn't really scream that out to me.
> 
> I get that this will be far less expensive than the L (and that's ultimately why this lens is happening), but I think a yet smaller design might move more units.
> 
> - A



It's not just 20mm of savings. it's around 350g as well, and most likely a pretty dramatic price difference between a $1100 L lens and this one.

probably marketing I suspect - people wanting a wider zoom range especially with smartphones getting larger zoom ranges? maybe?

to be honest - this lens isn't meant for anyone in these forums. I'm not sure why the people in these forums are even complaining about it.

Canon will always cater to the beginners and the entry level - whether we like it or not.

I don't think Canon is worried about selling this lens solo - they needed something to package in with the RF kits.

Canon has already stated there will be cameras under the RP. It doesn't make sense to have a camera selling for $800 and packaging it with either a $800 24-240 or a $1100 24-104L. They needed a cheap $399 or whatever price this lens is at that they can bundle in economically.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 11, 2020)

uri.raz said:


> Great photos!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I’ve used the 100L Macro for exactly that purpose and it’s surprisingly good. F2.8 is ideal balance between adequate DOF and good subject/background separation at that FL. The only drawback is the amount of working space required if you want to go wider than half-body perspective. 

As for this new lens, I’ll reserve full judgment until I see samples and get to test one in person. I will say that I like how compact it appears to be, but I don’t know if I could mentally overcome f7.1 (!!) as a limitation - even for travel use. Perhaps if it went to 300mm or longer...


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Agree in principal that this appears to be a play for small and light, but WTH didn't they go 24-70 f/7.1 and make something truly small? I won't bellyache about f/7.1, but people need to see this lens and go 'Oh, _*that's*_ why they did that.' Saving 20mm or so doesn't really scream that out to me.


Because 24-70mm is a boring zoom range?


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Feb 11, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> It’s not about need. It’s about disposable income. Around here, soccer moms have it and like to take pictures of their kiddos.
> 
> As a rank amateur, my issue with this lens is that I see the reach as just enough to capture my kids in the school play or orchestra concert. At 7.1, I’d have to crank up the ISO to get decent exposure, but I’m guessing shutter speed would be attempted as well, which would result in frustration attempting to capture decent images while kids are moving on stage.
> 
> ...


I hear ya. Don’t think high iso noise will bother the average Rebel soccer mom to be honest.


----------



## amorse (Feb 11, 2020)

canonnews said:


> It's not just 20mm of savings. it's around 350g as well, and most likely a pretty dramatic price difference between a $1100 L lens and this one.
> 
> probably marketing I suspect - people wanting a wider zoom range especially with smartphones getting larger zoom ranges? maybe?
> 
> ...


Absolutely agreed. 

Many people transitioned from family shooting with an EF-S body on a rebel kit upwards to eventually getting a full frame body with expensive lenses - that upgrade path was likely instrumental to moving people up-market. 

Since EF-M can't mount on RF, there is currently no transition pathway to full frame mirrorless from entry level bodies with the same mount (unless you adapt of course). If Canon does indeed plan on creating a full frame body below the RP, this lens might be the right price to create that entry point and transition pathway.


----------



## BillB (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Agree in principal that this appears to be a play for small and light, but WTH didn't they go 24-70 f/7.1 and make something truly small? I won't bellyache about f/7.1, but people need to see this lens and go 'Oh, _*that's*_ why they did that.' Saving 20mm or so doesn't really scream that out to me.
> 
> I get that this will be far less expensive than the L (and that's ultimately why this lens is happening), but I think a yet smaller design might move more units.
> 
> - A


Canon seems to have fallen in love with 24-105 as the range for basic consumer normal zooms. I guess they have the marketing numbers to back it up. Being Canon, they seem unfazed by Nikon's 24-120. Apparently Canon thinks the good magic number 105 trumps the not so good magic number 7.1.


----------



## BillB (Feb 11, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I hear ya. Don’t think high iso noise will bother the average Rebel soccer mom to be honest.


It might depend on how big she wants to print, assuming she want to print at all.


----------



## amorse (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Agree in principal that this appears to be a play for small and light, but WTH didn't they go 24-70 f/7.1 and make something truly small? I won't bellyache about f/7.1, but people need to see this lens and go 'Oh, _*that's*_ why they did that.' Saving 20mm or so doesn't really scream that out to me.
> 
> I get that this will be far less expensive than the L (and that's ultimately why this lens is happening), but I think a yet smaller design might move more units.
> 
> - A


I think it's going to eventually get mounted on a body cheaper than the RP and potential buyers in their local bestbuy will only see the zoom range and think - "hey, 105 is more than 70. I like doing the zooming, so I should get this one."

I agree 24-70 with a 7.1 would have a size argument in its favour, but if you are making a cheapest possible full frame body with a lens packaged, having that lens go up to 105 may convince some buyers to move over rather than choosing something like an a7ii with a packaged 28-70 (as we all know Sony likes to keep selling their old bodies). Other manufacturers don't really seem to have a zoom range like that for ultra cheap, so this could fill a niche.


----------



## melgross (Feb 11, 2020)

dwarven said:


> Not for macro it isn't. Besides, most macro shooters bring ring lights or flashes. Whenever I shoot macro I'm at f8 - f11. The magnification ratio of this lens is not good though, so it will probably be a cheapo beginner one.


You can always get a lens extender. Many macro lenses only go to :5 mag, but extend that to 1:1 with an extender. Otherwise the mechanics get complicated, and more expensive. It’s cheaper to buy an extender if you really need 1:1.


----------



## bluediablo (Feb 11, 2020)

slclick said:


> Not going to judge.


That's a very commendable response, thank you. After a decade of roaming the sidelines of recreation, club, academy and high school soccer, I met a number of very competent women shooting the kids, they knew their equipment they understood the game and my photography improved from knowing them. I hate this kind of sexist generalization.


----------



## IWLP (Feb 11, 2020)

This lens will be great on the rack at Best Buy.

A bit more zoom than most lens kits that people are used to. Decent macro capability for people who don't understand why their pictures turn out blurry when they get close. A 7.1 aperture for people who don't know what that word means and who will run their cameras in full auto mode and will be happy that they can zoom in a bit more on little Sally or Jimmy running around. Also for keeping DOF reasonable for people who probably don't have the best shot discipline with a FF sensor and wide-aperture lenses to keep everything they want in focus in focus. Those people will be very happy their photos still look better (generally) than their phone photos.

The rest of us here can continue to kvetch about which version of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is sharper.


----------



## Southstorm (Feb 11, 2020)

I'm just happy to see a consistent stream of new lenses...


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 11, 2020)

BillB said:


> Canon will have 4 normal range zooms, and quite a few people will still be unhappy.


Yeah, I've got the RF 24-105 f/4--it's a wonderful lens. But I'm very likely getting the 24-70 f/2.8 for assignment work, and was imagining this new one taking over travel duties in place of the f/4. It still might. It would be a really small load to drag around all day even compared to the f/4, and I've survived that. And the f/2.8 and f/4 overlap in capabilities more than a 2.8 and this one would......

Not complaining, just thinking out loud.


----------



## Pape (Feb 11, 2020)

And soccer moms can use EF 70-300mm nano usm for action until there is equivalent version for RF no need buy L 70-200mm


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

amorse said:


> Since EF-M can't mount on RF, there is currently no transition pathway to full frame mirrorless from entry level bodies with the same mount (unless you adapt of course). If Canon does indeed plan on creating a full frame body below the RP, this lens might be the right price to create that entry point and transition pathway.




+1, but they need more to pull that off than just an inexpensive 24-105 and 24-240. Slow/inexpensive versions of the UWA zoom, short tele (70 - 300 maybe) and supertele are needed as well.

- A


----------



## mpb001 (Feb 11, 2020)

At f7.1, the image will look fairly dim. Not only that, a hand held shot even with IS will need fairly high ISO. I don’t think this would make the greatest travel lens. It will be fine on a tripod, but on the long end that 7.1 handicaps this lens IMO.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

amorse said:


> I think it's going to eventually get mounted on a body cheaper than the RP and potential buyers in their local bestbuy will only see the zoom range and think - "hey, 105 is more than 70. I like doing the zooming, so I should get this one."
> 
> I agree 24-70 with a 7.1 would have a size argument in its favour, but if you are making a cheapest possible full frame body with a lens packaged, having that lens go up to 105 may convince some buyers to move over rather than choosing something like an a7ii with a packaged 28-70 (as we all know Sony likes to keep selling their old bodies). Other manufacturers don't really seem to have a zoom range like that for ultra cheap, so this could fill a niche.




Agree. 24-105s are crowd pleasers and not expensive to make. 

But the rumored RF body _even less expensive_ than the RP may lack an EVF and may not be much bigger than a deck of cards. You don't want to bolt something 80-90mm long on to it -- you want something Sony RX1R-ish in aggregate form factor.

So I still think some ultrasmall zooms (fully taking advantage of no longer being married to f/5.6 for AF) are coming -- even smaller than this one.

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 11, 2020)

canonnews said:


> for that I have a 1000 word demonstration for you. this is taking from our post on the subject over at canonnews and modified just for you
> 
> View attachment 188618
> 
> ...


Sure its bigger but its a 10-1 zoom that weighs 750g (the RF 24-105mm f4L is 700g) and is slightly faster to boot.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 11, 2020)

mpb001 said:


> At f7.1, the image will look fairly dim. [..]


The EVF will brighten it up.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

bluediablo said:


> That's a very commendable response, thank you. After a decade of roaming the sidelines of recreation, club, academy and high school soccer, I met a number of very competent women shooting the kids, they knew their equipment they understood the game and my photography improved from knowing them. I hate this kind of sexist generalization.




+1 of course.

So I've added or interchanged 'hockey dads' into my soccer mom statements the last few years. When I've said soccer moms before, the point was never that women somehow uniquely require a simple / low-tech camera (which is a ridiculous notion to hold) -- the point is that some folks just want to take snaps of the fam and not require climbing up the mode dial or discussing gear in forums to do it. One gender does not have a monopoly on that user need.

People love their kids and want to be able to capture them doing things in places that cell phones do not excel -- concerts, sporting events, etc. -- even if they've never owned or used a dedicated camera before. That applies to all genders.

- A


----------



## AJ (Feb 11, 2020)

I'm thinking a price on this of around 200 USD. I line with 55-250 STM and lenses like that.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> The EVF will brighten it up.




And I think we'll all learn how useful 6+ stops of aggregate IS is (for the prior poster's high ISO comment).

If you have moving subjects or insist on a shallow DOF, sure. Move on and buy another lens.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

AJ said:


> I'm thinking a price on this of around 200 USD. I line with 55-250 STM and lenses like that.




I doubt it will be that cheap. Unlike the 55-250, this is an FF image circle lens (crop lenses need less diameter/weight/volume to do the job).

The EF version of this lens (albeit f/5.6) is $599. Perhaps with the f/7.1 long end and smaller size/weight we might be in the $399 to $499 neighborhood.

- A


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 11, 2020)

Love how people are basically claiming that it’s impossible to take photos with an APS-C camera at f/5 or a m43 camera at f/4 max aperture. And that’s before even taking into account the ~7 (!) stops of stabilization you’re apparently going to get with this combined with the new IBIS-equipped bodies!! As long as your subjects aren’t moving, lack of light is not going to be a problem. And if they are, well, push the ISO! That’s what FF sensors are good at.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2020)

As far as slapping a macro function on the lens goes......

I have the 24-70F4 lens, and it has a macro setting. Flip the switch and twist the zoom and you are now in macro mode. I don’t use it a lot, but every now and then it is very useful. Yes, I have a real macro lens, but it means carrying another chunk of glass..... and that’s the reason why I like this idea for the lens. You end up with a single lens to carry when you go walkabout, no changing lenses, no extra filters, and a lot more convenient.


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 11, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> Love how people are basically claiming that it’s impossible to take photos with an APS-C camera at f/5 or a m43 camera at f/4 max aperture. And that’s before even taking into account the ~7 (!) stops of stabilization you’re apparently going to get with this combined with the new IBIS-equipped bodies!! As long as your subjects aren’t moving, lack of light is not going to be a problem. And if they are, well, push the ISO! That’s what FF sensors are good at.


You forgot by far the most popular camera: phones. And they're often a lot worse than even this.


----------



## amorse (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Agree. 24-105s are crowd pleasers and not expensive to make.
> 
> But the rumored RF body _even less expensive_ than the RP may lack an EVF and may not be much bigger than a deck of cards. You don't want to bolt something 80-90mm long on to it -- you want something Sony RX1R-ish in aggregate form factor.
> 
> ...


Such as an RF 20-50 f/4-5.6 as rumoured yesterday? I honestly think they're trying to make lenses which are as cheap as or cheaper than some of the EF-S lenses because they're trying to get that kit price to ~$1000-$1200 to hit the higher end of the entry-level market - people who want a camera which can do things their cell phone can't, and have aspirations of taking incredible images, but don't want to jump in with both feet yet.

The more I think about it, the more I think Canon is going to market the RF mount as a premium line, but still have some very very bare bones offerings to get people into the transition pathway upwards. Justify a slightly higher entry-point for a camera, but market using the the ultra high-end bodies.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 11, 2020)

I guess Canon now has all the bases covered with four shorter zooms in this category covering really high end (RF 28-70mm f2L), high end (RF 24-70 f2.8L mid market (RF24-105mm f4L) and low market (RF 24-105mm f4-7.1). Throw in the RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 for travel photographers on a budget and they tick all the boxes. The fast Holly Trinity is complete now they need to cover the medium speed (RF 16-35mm f4L & RF 70-200mm f4L) and they will have the major part of the zoom market covered. 
The EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM is such a peach of a lens that they will need to replicate this as an RF lens to compliment the two f1.2L lenses and a nifty fifty RF must be coming.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 11, 2020)

Where do you all live with enough light for this? I’m at f1.2 and often use around 800-1600 iso and often enough 6400-12800... cool with macro, but this has to be the worlds slowest max aperture without extenders?


----------



## Dragon (Feb 11, 2020)

BillB said:


> Canon seems to have fallen in love with 24-105 as the range for basic consumer normal zooms. I guess they have the marketing numbers to back it up. Being Canon, they seem unfazed by Nikon's 24-120. Apparently Canon thinks the good magic number 105 trumps the not so good magic number 7.1.


I don't see a 24-120 in Z mount. The obsolete variable aperture f mount has IQ that looks like a 15 year old Sigma or Tamron and the f/4 is too big for a carry-around lens on a mirrorless. Canon is being smart here. They are keeping the overall package small for the average user. If you want big lenses, they have them and I suspect they will have a bigger body to go along with them, but this is aimed at moving some of the Rebel crowd to FF mirrorless. If the R6 is well featured and not too expensive, I suspect the plan will work.


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 11, 2020)

Viggo said:


> Where do you all live with enough light for this? I’m at f1.2 and often use around 800-1600 iso and often enough 6400-12800... cool with macro, but this has to be the worlds slowest max aperture without extenders?


You know the shutter speed number is actually missing the "1/" part, so dial that down from 8000, it actually makes more light hit the sensor!


----------



## Laslen (Feb 11, 2020)

Proscribo said:


> You forgot by far the most popular camera: phones. And they're often a lot worse than even this.


So your camera is going to be about as good as a phone? What's the point of buying a camera then?

Personally my phone has a f1.8 wide lens and f2.4 "telephoto."


----------



## Joules (Feb 11, 2020)

Viggo said:


> this has to be the worlds slowest max aperture without extenders?


There are mirror lenses from third party manufacturers that are fixed at f/8 or slower.

But there it is more relevant, because they are also Tele focal length lenses. Your 50mm doesn't have IS, so keep that in mind. Especially in combination with IBIS this has the potential to make this lens work decently even under challenging conditions. It will all come down to the price, of course, but to me it makes sense that Canon is exploring the new options the RF mount gives them, even though I don't like all the things they are trying.


----------



## Pape (Feb 11, 2020)

Viggo said:


> Where do you all live with enough light for this? I’m at f1.2 and often use around 800-1600 iso and often enough 6400-12800... cool with macro, but this has to be the worlds slowest max aperture without extenders?


i bet youll be happy about ibis body


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 11, 2020)

Proscribo said:


> You forgot by far the most popular camera: phones. And they're *often a lot worse than even this*.





Laslen said:


> So your camera is going to be *about as good* as a phone? What's the point of buying a camera then?
> 
> Personally my phone has a f1.8 wide lens and *f2.4 "telephoto."*


I have no idea what you are trying to say.


----------



## Joules (Feb 11, 2020)

Laslen said:


> Personally my phone has a f1.8 wide lens and f2.4 "telephoto."


It also has a miniscule imaging sensor that you have to take into account when comparing the amount of gathered light. We're talking about a FF lens here, and a FF sensor makes a far* greater difference than that f/7.1 vs f/1.8 aperture.

The point you're responding to was that people can great results from phones, they can get great results from APS-C cameras, and this lens on an FF lens will outperform those in many situations so it should be able to give great results as well.

*edit: I was concerned of overstating the truth here. Assuming you have a top model with one of the largest sensors available in a smartphone, a 1/2.5" model, the sensor area is about 25 mm^2 while a FF sensor is about 865 mm^2. So with your wider aperture, the relative amount of light you're getting with your smartphone in comparison is:

(25 / 865) * (1.8^(-2) / 7.1^(-2)) = 0.45

So that's a little less than the difference between APS-C and FF, but still more than a stop. And that's just noise, with this lens you'll likely still get super image quality in term of resolution and aberrations, not to mention the ability to zoom.


----------



## slclick (Feb 11, 2020)

Ok, now we're at the point where facts are getting in the way of making a point, awesome!


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

Don Haines said:


> I have the 24-70F4 lens, and it has a macro setting. Flip the switch and twist the zoom and you are now in macro mode. I don’t use it a lot, but every now and then it is very useful. Yes, I have a real macro lens, but it means carrying another chunk of glass..... and that’s the reason why I like this idea for the lens. You end up with a single lens to carry when you go walkabout, no changing lenses, no extra filters, and a lot more convenient.




+1. Not all macro is on rails in a studio setting. With my 24-70 f/4L IS, I do a ton of casual quick macro with flowers, lizards, etc. on hikes and even local walks around my home.

It's not _ideal_ for macro, the working distance is challengingly close, it does not match the output of my 100L and ISO often needs to climb for a sharp handheld shutter (at the 'flower workable' DOF f/14 or so). But I didn't have to bring/carry the 100L with me, and I didn't miss a shot because I was changing out a lens. That's a win to me.

I still regard the EF 24-70 f/4 as a triumph in this regard. They turned my meat and potatoes sword & board fighter into a very serviceable multi-class character. That lens is a win.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2020)

Viggo said:


> Where do you all live with enough light for this? I’m at f1.2 and often use around 800-1600 iso and often enough 6400-12800... cool with macro, but this has to be the worlds slowest max aperture without extenders?


How about F14!








Venus Optics Laowa 24mm f/14 Probe Lens for Canon EF


Buy Venus Optics Laowa 24mm f/14 Probe Lens for Canon EF featuring EF-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format, Aperture Range: f/14 to f/40, Two Extra-Low Dispersion Elements, One Extra Refractive Index Element, Magnification: 2:1 to Infinity, Min. Focus: 1.5'; Working Distance: 0.8", Long Lens Barrel...




www.bhphotovideo.com


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

amorse said:


> The more I think about it, the more I think Canon is going to market the RF mount as a premium line, but still have some very very bare bones offerings to get people into the transition pathway upwards. Justify a slightly higher entry-point for a camera, but market using the the ultra high-end bodies.




Yeah. They have to do something on the low end as EF-S will soon die and EF-M lenses won't mount on RF.

One option is just as you say. Drop some very inexpensive breadcrumbs leading to the RF mount and see who bites. 

The other option is crop RF bodies and RF-S lenses. But talk of 'one mount to rule them all' tends to incite the EF-M crowd, as RF-S lenses and crop Rebels in RF are an existential threat to EF-M.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> The EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM is such a peach of a lens that they will need to replicate this as an RF lens to compliment the two f1.2L lenses and a nifty fifty RF must be coming.




Agree with everything you said except for this last bit. Why does Canon need a _third_ fast 85mm prime? How would an RF version of the EF 85 f/1.4L IS complement what's already in RF? IBIS is coming so _that_ gap will be addressed, and f/1.2 vs. f/1.4 doesn't make tremendous sense unless you are living in a double gauss world (like the 50 primes).

Did you envision the f/1.2Ls just for portraiture and a future f/1.4L IS for... some other use case? Video perhaps?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

Proscribo said:


> You know the shutter speed number is actually missing the "1/" part, so dial that down from 8000, it actually makes more light hit the sensor!




I was trying to find a polite way to tell Viggo that not _all_ of us are unlit subterranean bunker photographers, but you beat me to it.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

Laslen said:


> Personally my phone has a f1.8 wide lens and f2.4 "telephoto."






Is someone going to tell him/her? 

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I was trying to find a polite way to tell Viggo that not _all_ of us are unlit subterranean bunker photographers, but you beat me to it.
> 
> - A


I have done a 10,800 second exposure  on film!


----------



## David_E (Feb 11, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Macro shooters: could this lens replace other lenses in your kit, or is the magnification too low?


Magnification too low. I need 1:1 image scale or better. I use the EF100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM , the venerable EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM (unbeatable when you can’t get close), and the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Feb 11, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Why on earth would Canon make an f7.1 lens..?


Size, Weight, Cost.

(And I suspect a view that, taking all the above first, f7.1 gives less experienced shooters a better chance of getting their object of desire in focus - or within acceptable DOF if you prefer).


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Feb 11, 2020)

Viggo said:


> Where do you all live with enough light for this?


South of the Artic circle, Viggo, where it is always sunny


----------



## slclick (Feb 11, 2020)

Don Haines said:


> I have done a 10,800 second exposure  on film!


Whoa! I've done an 1800 second exposure for brushed emulsion on paper in sunlight but 3 hours?


----------



## preppyak (Feb 11, 2020)

Im assuming we're looking at similar prices to Sony's 28-70; hopefully not similar optical performance.

Its weird that the 24-240 is brighter while not being wildly heavier despite containing more than double the range.


----------



## Pape (Feb 11, 2020)

preppyak said:


> Im assuming we're looking at similar prices to Sony's 28-70; hopefully not similar optical performance.
> 
> Its weird that the 24-240 is brighter while not being wildly heavier despite containing more than double the range.


Macro lenses always bit dimmer,maybe compromises for quality or focus breath


----------



## masterpix (Feb 11, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Question, when they will make extention tubes for R lenses? I use extention tubes with my EF lenses to create marco photogrpahy.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2020)

slclick said:


> Whoa! I've done an 1800 second exposure for brushed emulsion on paper in sunlight but 3 hours?


Star trails...... and it was a total failure


----------



## Viggo (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I was trying to find a polite way to tell Viggo that not _all_ of us are unlit subterranean bunker photographers, but you beat me to it.
> 
> - A


There is such a thing as faster than tripod-needed shutter speeds


----------



## Laslen (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Is someone going to tell him/her?
> 
> - A


Tell me what? Google iPhone X/11 Pro specs.

You guys are living in the past if you think smartphones aren't a threat to cameras. Canon and Sony certainly believe they are.


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Feb 11, 2020)

Laslen said:


> Tell me what? Google iPhone X/11 Pro specs.
> 
> You guys are living in the past if you think smartphones aren't a threat to cameras. Canon and Sony certainly believe they are.



Are you using your phone to shoot a wedding? Perhaps a sporting event? If so, I pity your customers. Now if you're just taking pictures of your kids, sure, that cell camera is awesomesauce.


----------



## jvillain (Feb 11, 2020)

The good new is you will never have to worry about being out of focus.


----------



## David_E (Feb 11, 2020)

TMACIOSZEK said:


> ...Now if you're just taking pictures of your kids, sure, that cell camera is awesomesauce.


Or if you want to win an Oscar for a motion picture shot mostly on an iPhone (_Searching for Sugar Man_). *Or make photos like these or **like these.* To paraphrase* TMACIOSZEK, *you're living in the past if you think that the iPhone camera is suitable only for snapshots of the kids.


----------



## dwarven (Feb 11, 2020)

melgross said:


> You can always get a lens extender. Many macro lenses only go to :5 mag, but extend that to 1:1 with an extender. Otherwise the mechanics get complicated, and more expensive. It’s cheaper to buy an extender if you really need 1:1.



Eh, I'd rather just go with the real thing. $650 isn't going to break the bank. 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1233541-REG/tamron_sp_90mm_f_2_8_di.html


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 11, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> Canon already has the RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM so why make a RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 IS USM?



It may be an appealing alternative to a heavy $1000 lens for some buyers who are not you.


----------



## preppyak (Feb 11, 2020)

Pape said:


> Macro lenses always bit dimmer,maybe compromises for quality or focus breath


Yeah, though with only .4x macro at 105mm, Im not sure you can excuse f/7.1 in any way.

The 24-105 STM did .3x while being f/3.5-5.6 and only maybe 25% heavier; which presumably could have been shaved a little just because of RF (the RF 24-105 f/4 shaved ~10% off its EF counterpart). I guess I'm just not seeing any way to explain this lens other than "it'll cost $199 max"


----------



## Laslen (Feb 11, 2020)

TMACIOSZEK said:


> Are you using your phone to shoot a wedding? Perhaps a sporting event? If so, I pity your customers. Now if you're just taking pictures of your kids, sure, that cell camera is awesomesauce.


I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about the potential customer base for this lens.

It just doesn't seem logical for Canon. They saw complaints online "there are no affordable lenses for RF!" so they went "Okay, here we go $300 24-105 f7.1!" Nobody is going to want it. It seems like an ill-advised reactionary move that I would expect more from Sony than Canon. A 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 for $300 would've made much more sense.


----------



## preppyak (Feb 11, 2020)

David_E said:


> Or if you want to win an Oscar for a motion picture *shot mostly on an iPhone* (_Searching for Sugar Man_). Or make photos like these or like these. To paraphrase TMACIOSZEK, you're living in the past if you think that the iPhone camera is suitable only for snapshots of the kids.


There's a massive difference between "mostly shot" and "a few pickup shoots"...you'd make a stronger argument running with something like Tangerine which was shot entirely on an iPhone


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Feb 11, 2020)

BillB said:


> As far as exposure is concerned f2.8 on an APS-C lens is the same as f2.8 on a FF lens and 4.0 on a FF lens is the same as 4.0 on an aps-c lens. So, for exposure, f7.1 on the 24-105 will be 2/3 of a stop slower than F5.6 on an aps-c.



Thank you. I was about to write the same thing.

When referring to one lens being "faster" than another, there is no "equivalent" aperture that is calculated for a Full Frame vs APS-C. The aperture is the aperture. F7.1 is always slower than F5.6 regardless of the sensor size. By "slower" I'm of course referring only to the shutter speed needed for the exposure. We don't "multiply" an APS-C aperture by 1.6x to get a full-frame equivalent. It's the same. F5.6 on APS-C is not, as far as exposure and the lens being "fast", equivalent to F8.96 on Full-Frame.

From a Depth of Field perspective, yes, there is a difference between F7.1 on APS-C vs Full-Frame, but since 90% of the comments related to this seem to be dealing with shutter speed, exposure, dimness, and ISO (not DoF), it's important to make the point. 

All that said, I have no problem with an F7.1 lens if the benefit is size and weight. I personally shoot at F8 or narrower a good deal of the time. My _*guess*_ is that Canon feels the better high ISO noise performance and image stabilization of these cameras and lenses both help significantly negate any downsides of the narrower aperture. For someone looking specifically for narrow DoF, this is probably not your lens. But for most uses, by using a little higher ISO and / or IS it's likely a great addition.


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Feb 11, 2020)

David_E said:


> Or if you want to win an Oscar for a motion picture shot mostly on an iPhone (_Searching for Sugar Man_). *Or make photos like these or **like these.* To paraphrase* TMACIOSZEK, *you're living in the past if you think that the iPhone camera is suitable only for snapshots of the kids.



Well you should certainly sell all your digital camera equipment and just use your cell phone. Good luck with that.


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Feb 11, 2020)

Laslen said:


> I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about the potential customer base for this lens.
> 
> It just doesn't seem logical for Canon. They saw complaints online "there are no affordable lenses for RF!" so they went "Okay, here we go $300 24-105 f7.1!" Nobody is going to want it. It seems like an ill-advised reactionary move that I would expect more from Sony than Canon. A 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 for $300 would've made much more sense.



They are just putting out cheap lenses for the "starter" shooter. Anyone that buys this lens for general shooting will soon grow frustrated with it's lack of usefulness and start looking to upgrade.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

Laslen said:


> Tell me what? Google iPhone X/11 Pro specs.
> 
> You guys are living in the past if you think smartphones aren't a threat to cameras. Canon and Sony certainly believe they are.




Cell phones take lovely pictures. They absolutely are a threat to general consumer-grade dedicated cameras, sure.

But even an aging 5D2 with a nifty fifty would mop the floor with a modern cell phone as far as stills go.

That 'quick' f/1.8 or f/2 cell phone lens you referenced scales to something horrific in FF terms, like f/10 or narrower for DOF equivalence. Such an instrument is (effectively) always shooting stopped down compared to the FF shooting experience. In comparison, even this thread's 'embarrassment' of an f/7.1 lens on an RF mount body would give better subject isolation than your cell phone, focus faster, will work far better in low light, it will be more responsive, etc.

Cell phones are great, but they simply can't do all the things the larger sensored platforms can (other than go more places with you).

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

Laslen said:


> It just doesn't seem logical for Canon. They saw complaints online "there are no affordable lenses for RF!" so they went "Okay, here we go $300 24-105 f7.1!" Nobody is going to want it. It seems like an ill-advised reactionary move that I would expect more from Sony than Canon. A 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 for $300 would've made much more sense.




I don't see this as Canon giving up on fast/pro glass or anything. This isn't a platform-level course correction -- it's one flipping lens.

They need fast pro glass. They have made some and they will make some more.
They need smaller lenses for those who don't want to lug a big aggregate platform around. They will make some.
They need inexpensive lenses to draw people into the system. They will make some.
It's not only possible but expected (given Canon's prior modus operandi) to offer multiple price points and levels of glass. Committing some development towards one of those lanes above doesn't mean Canon is abandoning the other. 

Perhaps Canon is trying to straddle groups 2 and 3 above with these slower-than-f/5.6 offerings. Or maybe it is just building up a small and light line of non-L lenses and more f/4 or f/5.6 standard zooms are coming later. We'll find out.

- A


----------



## David_E (Feb 11, 2020)

TMACIOSZEK said:


> _Well you should certainly sell all your digital camera equipment and just use your cell phone. Good luck with that._


Do you see the world as only black or white? Can you envision a world in which iPhone and interchangeable-lens digital cameras both exist? Because that's the way it is, so you might as well get over it. The main difference is that while sales of dedicated digital cameras are declining, the number of iPhone cameras in use is approaching one billion.


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Feb 11, 2020)

David_E said:


> Do you see the world as only black or white? Can you envision a world in which iPhone and interchangeable-lens digital cameras both exist? Because that's the way it is, so you might as well get over it. The main difference is that while sales of dedicated digital cameras are declining, the number of iPhone cameras in use is approaching one billion.



I see the world as dreamers and realists. Sure, we'd ALL love to not have to lug around 40lbs of gear for shoots and just use our cell phones, are you kidding me? That would be a dream come true. But I live in reality. You're thinking small potatoes with just consumers. I'm talking about serious shooters that actually get paid. And again I repeat, if you love your cell phone camera that much... do sell all your digital gear, it's clearly a waste of your money.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

David_E said:


> Do you see the world as only black or white? Can you envision a world in which iPhone and interchangeable-lens digital cameras both exist? Because that's the way it is, so you might as well get over it. The main difference is that while sales of dedicated digital cameras are declining, the number of iPhone cameras in use is approaching one billion.




No one's refuting trends or numbers. Cell phones are great, sure. No one is saying they should go away.

I think some of us are just commenting that someone saying a full-frame f/7.1 lens is a joke 'because my cell phone has f/1.8' is not a great take. 

- A


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 11, 2020)

f/7.1 Wow.. Only way I would consider this lens is if it was razor sharp wide open.. But I highly doubt it..


----------



## David_E (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> _Cell phones take lovely pictures. They absolutely are a threat to general consumer-grade dedicated cameras, sure.
> 
> But even an aging 5D2 with a nifty fifty would mop the floor with a modern cell phone as far as stills go.
> 
> ...


_Cell phones are great, but they simply can't do all the things the larger sensored platforms can (other than go more places with you)._

That last paragraph is about the only part you got right. It would also be correct to say _Cell phones are great, and they can do many of the things the larger sensored platforms can do, with the added advantage that they can go more places with you._


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 11, 2020)

You'd really need a wide open mind to appreciate this lens!


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2020)

TMACIOSZEK said:


> I see the world as dreamers and realists. Sure, we'd ALL love to not have to lug around 40lbs of gear for shoots and just use our cell phones, are you kidding me? That would be a dream come true. But I live in reality. You're thinking small potatoes with just consumers. I'm talking about serious shooters that actually get paid. And again I repeat, if you love your cell phone camera that much... do sell all your digital gear, it's clearly a waste of your money.


It’s the consumers that are the vast bulk of sales. Canon WILL go after that market


----------



## Jethro (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Working distance will be important. If the 24-70 f/4L IS had a macro mode at 70mm that needed to be within (foggy memory, I'm estimating) 6" or so of the subject, get ready for shading the hell out of your subject with the lens at 24mm!
> 
> Even Canon's own press shots shows how 'neato while impractical' the macro mode may be with this thing on the wide end.
> View attachment 188615​
> ...


The 24-70 f/4L goes into dedicated macro mode after _70mm_, and I don't have the specs with me, but in practice it focuses a couple of feet away. It's a great little macro lens. That's why I was saying earlier that while the macro mode on the new lens will be 'handy', it won't be in the same league.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 11, 2020)

Laslen said:


> I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about the potential customer base for this lens.
> 
> It just doesn't seem logical for Canon. They saw complaints online "there are no affordable lenses for RF!" so they went "Okay, here we go $300 24-105 f7.1!" Nobody is going to want it. It seems like an ill-advised reactionary move that I would expect more from Sony than Canon. A 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 for $300 would've made much more sense.



I would think they'd know more about what lenses sell, what with having sold over a hundred million lenses.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Feb 11, 2020)

Let's also keep in mind that it's not an F7.1 lens. It's a variable aperture lens with an F7.1 max aperture at some point in the zoom range, that we currently have no idea where that is. 

If the lens is F4 from 24 -50mm, F5.6 though 70mm, and only gets into the narrower apertures at the higher focal lengths, that might make a big difference in the usability complaints.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Working distance will be important. If the 24-70 f/4L IS had a macro mode at 70mm that needed to be within (foggy memory, I'm estimating) 6" or so of the subject, get ready for shading the hell out of your subject with the lens at 24mm!
> 
> Even Canon's own press shots shows how 'neato while impractical' the macro mode may be with this thing on the wide end.
> View attachment 188615​
> ...


The long end will be more useful, no question about it, but it's nice to have the choice. Wide angle environmental macro shots of bugs and flowers can be great.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

Jethro said:


> The 24-70 f/4L goes into dedicated macro mode after _70mm_, and I don't have the specs with me, but in practice it focuses a couple of feet away. It's a great little macro lens. That's why I was saying earlier that while the macro mode on the new lens will be 'handy', it won't be in the same league.




At 70mm but not in the macro mode, you are correct. A rough check just now could achieve focus at (eyeballing it) perhaps 9" in front of the lens front element / 15" from the sensor plane. 

But in the macro mode, it's a very different ballgame. From TDP on the 24-70 f/4L IS:

_As the lens is zoomed to ~80mm (again, not really 80mm), minimum focusing distance reduces to 7.87" (200mm). Since MFD is measured from the imaging sensor plane, the working distance (WD) is considerably less. At 7.87" (200mm), there is about 1.2" (30mm) of WD remaining between the front lens element and the subject. Forget using the lens hood – it is longer than the WD – and lighting within the small opening between the lens and the subject becomes a challenge._​​Take a real-world attempt here the court jester himself (tee it up at 7:12)






...but with the caveat that it's only for max mag 0.7x action. It will still resolve AF a bit further away. A quick check here in the house on my 5D3 could get the AF to resolve at perhaps 6" from the front element if I didn't want to chase the max mag.

- A


----------



## gouldopfl (Feb 11, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Macro shooters: could this lens replace other lenses in your kit, or is the magnification too low?


Not likely. With Macro depending on what I am shooting F8-F32 is more my range. I also bracket a lot of shots to get a better depth of field


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> The long end will be more useful, no question about it, but it's nice to have the choice. Wide angle environmental macro shots of bugs and flowers can be great.




Sure, it's a neat party trick:
​
But not being a pro with a studio full of lighting options (which I believe is the target demo with such a lens), I don't know how on earth you light subjects that close.

I get the role of wider 1:2 macro, say 35-50mm or so for food/travel/lifestyle shots, but 24mm seems unworkable without a lot of extra 'stuff'.

- A


----------



## Jethro (Feb 11, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> At 70mm but not in the macro mode, you are correct. A rough check just now could achieve focus at (eyeballing it) perhaps 9" in front of the lens front element / 15" from the sensor plane.
> 
> But in the macro mode, it's a very different ballgame. From TDP on the 24-70 f/4L IS:
> 
> ...


Hmmm - I think that to get the _maximum _70% macro - I'm sure 6 inches is right - but in macro mode I can resolve focus way further back than that (obviously with <70% fill). That's what I meant.


----------



## ashmadux (Feb 11, 2020)

AGAIN.


*EEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW*

wtf kind if trash aperture is that? Your going to be taking pics at iso 8000++ in the early evening to compensate for this trash aperature.

Just terrible.


----------



## ashmadux (Feb 11, 2020)

bluenoser1993 said:


> Wow people don't seem to have a grip on reality tonight. f/7.1, that's only good for a paper weight, a rebel user, ignorant new entrants customers, batting practice...... seriously folks, need to go home if the clouds come out!? Talk to the people that have spent 3k to mount a 100-400 on a 1.4x and shoot at f/8, or a 2x at f/11. Lots of people shooting sports and wildlife with those combinations and quite happy with the results when a 10k option isn't an option - but they (me) must be ignorant for being happy with these results.
> 
> If the price is right, the lens small, and image quality decent, this lens will make a lot of people happy.



And?

It's still a joke of an aperature. Even for a budget lens. 

In some countries, they eat dogs and others eat grilled rat. 

The point? *Just because they do that, it's doesn't make it 'acceptable'. *caps only for super emphasis.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2020)

ashmadux said:


> wtf kind if trash aperture is that? Your going to be taking pics at iso 8000++ in the early evening to compensate for this trash aperature.




f/7.1 sure isn't sexy, but the new platform has other tricks up its sleeve that might make it worthwhile.

Let's say you were shooting a static subject wide open at 105mm on an SLR with an EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM that requires ISO 8000 to properly expose.

This new lens on the future RF body will be:

2/3 of a stop slower than f/5.6
*4 stops faster via IBIS*
Net of 3-1/3 stops quicker, so the mirrorless shooter can get away with ISO _800_. The quicker EF lens is up in noiseville while this clunker of a budget RF lens is living comfortably where the sensor performs better.

- A


----------



## BillB (Feb 11, 2020)

ashmadux said:


> AGAIN.
> 
> 
> *EEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW*
> ...


So f7.1 is a trash aperture and f5.6 isn't?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 12, 2020)

ashmadux said:


> It's still a joke of an aperature. Even for a budget lens.



It's ok for many scenarios, 4ex for landscapes. At 105mm, you'll likely stop down to f10-f11 anyway. Depending on the price, size and image quality/sharpness, it may be an ok compact lens for landscapes + hiking.

Personally, when/if I've migrated to the R system, I wouldn't buy it, but you're not forced to buy it either are you?


----------



## canonnews (Feb 12, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Personally, when/if I've migrated to the R system, I wouldn't buy it, but you're not forced to buy it either are you?



Indeed. I doubt I'd ever buy it, but I see the relevance and I think I see what Canon is trying to do.

People have to keep in mind that the EOS-M, especially the M50 has been a huge success and most of those lenses to go F6.3 - so is max aperture that important to those purchasers?

There is no upgrade path from EF-M to RF and Canon doesn't care - why? because the RF system will be it - from basic consumer to professional. Much like it was in film days. The EF-M system is basically advanced powershots with interchangeable lenses.

it's not a sexy lens. But there should be enough sexy lenses already in the RF mount to keep everyone occupied for another few weeks until Canon drops the hammer on this year's RF development plans (IMO).


----------



## reefroamer (Feb 12, 2020)

ashmadux said:


> AGAIN.
> 
> 
> *EEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW*
> ...


I can see that such a trash aperture is very frustrating to your creative endeavors. I understand your anger. But please, don't give up! I can assure you that many excellent, prize winning images have been captured at f7.1 and higher and you will eventually be able to do it, too. Rome wasn’t built in a day. If all else fails, there’s always your smartphone.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 12, 2020)

And now there's the price for it (at Nokishita, google-translated)



> The UK price of the new Canon product is £ 819 for the “EOS 850D Body”, £ 899 for the “EOS 850D 18-55 Kit”, £ 1199 for the “EOS 850D 18-135mm Kit”, and “RF 24-105mm f / 4-7.1” The IS STM is £ 459 and the Selphy Square QX10 (Black, White, Pink, Green) is £ 139. #rumor



Not exceptionally cheap tbh.


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 12, 2020)

Question: do gear-heads even take photographs? Answer: based on the comments regarding the 7.1 f stop, nope.
For decades, landscape photographers used f 8.0 as a sort of default. No problem shooting on ISO 100 film. My custom settings use 7.1 and I almost never need to change it. Literally 1000s of pics taken - even amazingly on cloudy days - at ISO 100 or 200 max. No problem. Even sunsets and in the after-glow. No problem.

Now, 7.1 may make this a no buy lens for those needing shallow DOF, but it's not an issue on a cloudy day.

It' only 395 grams. And 18.5 mm shorter than the RF version. So there are compromises. I'll take the smaller size and weight even with 7.1 every day of the week for a consumer lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> And now there's the price for it (at Nokishita, google-translated)
> 
> Not exceptionally cheap tbh.




I was guessing around $399-499. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but normal currency conversions would not apply for USD asking price, correct? I always seem to be shocked that a $2000 camera in the US is £2000 or more in England.

- A


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 12, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I was guessing around $399-499.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but normal currency conversions would not apply for USD asking price, correct? I always seem to be shocked that a $2000 camera in the US is £2000 or more in England.
> 
> - A



ok if it's 459 USD, it'll be a bit more reasonable imho.


----------



## i_SH (Feb 12, 2020)

canonnews said:


> Indeed. I doubt I'd ever buy it, but I see the relevance and I think I see what Canon is trying to do.
> 
> People have to keep in mind that the EOS-M, especially the M50 has been a huge success and most of those lenses to go F6.3 - so is max aperture that important to those purchasers?
> 
> ...



You're right!
The 24-205 STM lens output does not upset. Grieving for the lack of lenses for ordinary photography enthusiasts. That is, those that would harmoniously look with cameras, had decent aperture ratio (even variable), moderate size and weight.
For maniacs  (in the good sense of the word) there are already 4 lenses! 28-70, 50 and two 85!
For pros and semi-professionals, too, 4: 15-35, 24-70, 24-105 and 70-200.
There are already 2 lenses for beginners: 24-240 and 24-105 STM ...

Where are the lenses for fans?  conditionally, while only one! 35


----------



## Sdiver2489 (Feb 12, 2020)

This is the first real "miss" I've seen from Canon in quite a while now. They've been on their game and honestly really making me regret switching from the 5Div to the A7Riv. The only problem I saw was that even though I'm jealous of the huge mount and the lenses that has been allowed by it I realize that I could only afford 2 or so of these new lenses and wouldn't have access to all the focal lengths info right now. 

Hope Canon keeps knocking it out of the park I would like it come back at some point. First things first you need sigma to make lenses for these cameras that perform on par with Canon glass unlike my experience on Canon DSLRs


----------



## Dexter75 (Feb 12, 2020)

If this is the kit lens for the R6, it’s definitely going to be an APS-C camera Priced below the RP.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> If this is the kit lens for the R6, it’s definitely going to be an APS-C camera Priced below the RP.




It's *a* kit lens for RF bodies, but it might be more complicated than you think.

They are kitting it with the RP with no mention of the R6 (so far). That's somewhat odd if we expect an R6 reveal soon.

​
Or perhaps a 20MP x 20fps + IBIS rig will not be the lowest price point after all, and it might be kitted with the RF 24-105L. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> If this is the kit lens for the R6, it’s definitely going to be an APS-C camera Priced below the RP.




And if a crop RF body is truly happening, don't you think they'd kit it with a sensor-appropriate crop RF lens?

- A


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 12, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> And if a crop RF body is truly happening, don't you think they'd kit it with a sensor-appropriate crop RF lens?
> 
> - A


Integrated focal reducer would be the answer of course.


----------



## Jethro (Feb 12, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> And now there's the price for it (at Nokishita, google-translated)
> 
> 
> 
> Not exceptionally cheap tbh.


I notice the translated section includes "#rumor" - are they treating these prices as rumours? rather than actuals?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 12, 2020)

Jethro said:


> I notice the translated section includes "#rumor" - are they treating these prices as rumours? rather than actuals?


I guess everything is 'rumour' unless it's 'news' in their twitter, but tbh I don't visit Nokishita too often. I guess the difference is that rumour is something that's not announced officially yet.


----------



## preppyak (Feb 12, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> ok if it's 459 USD, it'll be a bit more reasonable imho.


I think at $399 or $499, its still DOA as anything but a kit lens. If I want 1:2 macro, I can go buy the 35mm f/1.8 to get a decently sharp lens with versatility. And if I really want a 24-105 kit lens, I'd buy the EF 24-105 kit that routinely goes for ~$300ish, since I get a faster lens at both ends and functionally the same macro.

Only reason to give it a $499 price is to say "and we're including a $500 lens for only $200 more with the kit!", when we'll all know the lens isnt even worth $200.

The good news overall is Canon's entry stuff (24-240, 35, 24-105) has generally been a solid step up from Sonys versions (24-240 is BAD, 28 is ok, their 24-105 lacks a bit)....so maybe Canons throwaway kit wont be as bad as sonys 28-70, which is pushing unusable-levels of bad.


----------



## SteveC (Feb 12, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I was guessing around $399-499.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but normal currency conversions would not apply for USD asking price, correct? I always seem to be shocked that a $2000 camera in the US is £2000 or more in England.
> 
> - A



I'm American. I've never been to the UK, but I am told by people who have been there that the prices all "look normal" for just about anything: food, hotels, etc., regardless of the difference in exchange rate, which makes visiting there a very expensive proposition for us.

So I'm not at all surprised to read here that $2000 cameras here are £2000 there. The price, after all, looks normal to us.


----------



## Pape (Feb 12, 2020)

Hey canon made 500$miracles before too. Lets not call this worthless before we can see how it works


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 12, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> It’s barely more than HALF the weight of the f4 L lens that details for $1100.
> 
> This promises to be a handy little gem for people who don’t occasionally mind a little ISO in their imaging.


And


brad-man said:


> View attachment 188613


correction. It’s F32 .....


----------



## Kit. (Feb 12, 2020)

For this kind of price, cannot Canon repeat in RF something like what EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 was?


----------



## maniacalrobot (Feb 12, 2020)

everyone is seeing the 7.1 and predicting doom and the end of canon … as usual. Now agreed, 7.1 on the long end is not great, but it's absolutely fine for a lower cost kit lens, and, 7.1 is really not an issue if all the new R bodies come with IBIS + Lens IS, you'll get some stupidly high 5-7 stops of stabilization?


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 12, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Sure, it's a neat party trick:
> View attachment 188622​
> But not being a pro with a studio full of lighting options (which I believe is the target demo with such a lens), I don't know how on earth you light subjects that close.
> 
> ...


I don't understand why you're being so negative about it. For wide angle macro work, physically small lenses are best, and a zoom (even one as petite as this) wouldn't be first choice. But if you can at least focus the lens you're halfway there, and needing to do something about the light doesn't mean close focusing at the wide end isn't potentially useful. Extra light is needed for a lot of macro work, it goes with the territory.

Would you also decry the ability to shoot at very slow shutter speeds, because "extra stuff" - a tripod - is needed to make it useful?


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 12, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Yes! Had to get to page 4 before somebody finally said that. The APS-C world is full of f/4-5.6 kit lenses and as an equivalent this is _faster_!


Further to this - today's big news on the lens front is that Olympus has launched a new 12-45 mm f/4 Pro lens. This is a full frame equivalent of 24-90 f/8 and retails for $649. Puts the RF 24-105 f/4-f7.1 into perspective doesn't it?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 12, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> And now there's the price for it (at Nokishita, google-translated)
> 
> 
> 
> Not exceptionally cheap tbh.



That was my thoughts too. Asking 900 pounds for a rebel with kit lens seems a bit expensive. You can pick up a new grey market 800D with kit lens for 350. I know it's grey market and not quite the same but still.


----------



## Sdiver2489 (Feb 12, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Further to this - today's big news on the lens front is that Olympus has launched a new 12-45 mm f/4 Pro lens. This is a full frame equivalent of 24-90 f/8 and retails for $649. Puts the RF 24-105 f/4-f7.1 into perspective doesn't it?




First of all no, it's equivalent in aperture terms to f6.

Secondly, in terms of exposure this is a f7.1 lens. The Fuji is f4. 

F7.1 is limiting in terms of exposure AND DOF.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Feb 12, 2020)

Sdiver2489 said:


> First of all no, it's equivalent in aperture terms to f6.
> 
> Secondly, in terms of exposure this is a f7.1 lens. The Fuji is f4.
> 
> F7.1 is limiting in terms of exposure AND DOF.


That was a crop 2 MFT lens, not Fuji. Equivalent to f8 FF in DOF AND light gathering capability (noise characteristics).


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 12, 2020)

Sdiver2489 said:


> First of all no, it's equivalent in aperture terms


It is equivalent in exposure. Why do people forget that there's aperture, shutter speed AND iso?


----------



## Sdiver2489 (Feb 12, 2020)

BurningPlatform said:


> That was a crop 2 MFT lens, not Fuji. Equivalent to f8 FF in DOF AND light gathering capability (noise characteristics).


[
Woah did I just read that wrong? Could have sworn it said Fuji.

Anyway, does MFT work a different way that I am not familiar with? Isn't an f4 lens in terms of exposure still an f4 lens? I can't see this being different for MFT.


----------



## Sdiver2489 (Feb 12, 2020)

Proscribo said:


> It is equivalent in exposure. Why do people forget that there's aperture, shutter speed AND iso?


I'm not forgetting that, but saying it's an f8 lens is using the crop factor to compare DOF. Unless someone wants to tell me how an f4 lens on MFT is different than any other lens on a different system.

Edit: ah I bet you are making a noise comparison AND and aperture comparison. Kinda silly to call it an f8 lens in terms of exposure imo. But if that makes it easier for you.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 12, 2020)

Sdiver2489 said:


> [
> Woah did I just read that wrong? Could have sworn it said Fuji.
> 
> Anyway, does MFT work a different way that I am not familiar with? Isn't an f4 lens in terms of exposure still an f4 lens? I can't see this being different for MFT.



It depends on how you want to compare between the systems, is it "Exact same framing, DoF and noise", "Same position to subject, don't care about framing, DoF or noise" or something else?


----------



## Bangrossi (Feb 12, 2020)

Hopefuly at 105mm f/7.1 image quality is excelent or at least on par with RF 24-105L.. it's frustating if the the lens can do 105 f/4 but the quality is so bad that it need to be stop down to f/8 to get acceptable sharpness.


----------



## JustUs7 (Feb 12, 2020)

I’m going to speculate that they’re able to sell RP bodies at the kit price of under $1,500. They haven’t been able to remove that special, but I wonder how profitable the 24-240 kit is at that price? 
So they make the RP kit with this lens. Correct the pricing on the 24-240 kit. Maybe $1,800 or $1,900? 24-105 is not a bad kit lens and I honestly would have paid a bit more for the 240 if this had at least got us in the door to talk about the RP.


----------



## Sdiver2489 (Feb 12, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> It depends on how you want to compare between the systems, is it "Exact same framing, DoF and noise", "Same position to subject, don't care about framing, DoF or noise" or something else?



I get what you are going for...but noise isn't a direct property of the lens whereas DOF is so I get the aperture comparison. I think the noise comparison is a bit of a stretch but like I said if it helps you picture performance comparisons between systems I guess it works.

The problem I see here is we have sunken to comparing a brand new, RF mount lens to a MFT lens/camera system to make it sound better. That's not a good thing.

When people buy a dedicated camera instead of smartphones, they expect better performance and a lot of that comes from the ability to isolate the subject. When you remove that ability you end up with disappointed buyers.


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Feb 12, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> Question: do gear-heads even take photographs? Answer: based on the comments regarding the 7.1 f stop, nope.
> For decades, landscape photographers used f 8.0 as a sort of default. No problem shooting on ISO 100 film. My custom settings use 7.1 and I almost never need to change it. Literally 1000s of pics taken - even amazingly on cloudy days - at ISO 100 or 200 max. No problem. Even sunsets and in the after-glow. No problem.
> 
> Now, 7.1 may make this a no buy lens for those needing shallow DOF, but it's not an issue on a cloudy day.
> ...



f/7.1 is a perfectly fine aperture... it's just not an ideal MINIMUM aperture value. Especially at 105mm. Sure, there will be those that say, "I only shoot 7.1 or higher for macro and/or landscape!" And for you three photographers, that's awesome. I'm sure this lens will sell in the dozens to unsuspecting newbies, but I'd venture to guess that anyone serious about photography would rather have a more open aperture lens and then adjust to narrower apertures as situations present themselves.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Would you also decry the ability to shoot at very slow shutter speeds, because "extra stuff" - a tripod - is needed to make it useful?




Not a tripod: _lighting_, principally. Handholding at 24mm with IBIS + lens IS = not a tripod but still very helpful.

Again, it's a neat feature. I just contend that full mag at MFD at 24mm will very challenging to net good shots.

- A


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 12, 2020)

Sdiver2489 said:


> I get what you are going for...but noise isn't a direct property of the lens whereas DOF is so I get the aperture comparison. I think the noise comparison is a bit of a stretch but like I said if it helps you picture performance comparisons between systems I guess it works.
> 
> The problem I see here is we have sunken to comparing a brand new, RF mount lens to a MFT lens/camera system to make it sound better. That's not a good thing.



1) Depth of field is not a property of the lens alone, it's a property of the _lens and sensor size combined_.

2) The Olympus lens _is also brand new_, announced today, in fact that was the whole point of the comparison.



Sdiver2489 said:


> When people buy a dedicated camera instead of smartphones, they expect better performance and a lot of that comes from the ability to isolate the subject. When you remove that ability you end up with disappointed buyers.


That is also wrong. If we use the Samsung S10's main rear camera as an example of a decent smartphone camera, it has a full frame equivalent of about f/9, so our f/7.1 RF lens is only 2/3 stop better. **BUT** the RF lens is 105 mm, and magnification caused by the narrower field of view contributes greatly to the background blur and therefore subject isolation. So no, all those buyers who you imagine might upgrade for this one facet of performance won't be disappointed.


----------



## Joules (Feb 12, 2020)

TMACIOSZEK said:


> but I'd venture to guess that anyone serious about photography would rather have a more open aperture lens and then adjust to narrower apertures as situations present themselves.


There are always things we would rather want. The real question for me is: what are the alternatives? You can't look at something in isolation and say it is good or bad. It may be a bad lens in comparison to others. But the only fair comparison would be zoom lenses with a similar range and price tag (< 500) and weight (< 400). Since clearly, those are the properties this lens was designed for: affordable and compact.

I can't think of any alternative right away, but I don't have a great overview on FF zoom lenses anyway. Are there other lenses with such parameters? In which regards are they better?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> 2) The Olympus lens _is also brand new_, announced today, in fact that was the whole point of the comparison.




And never forget that an f/4 MFT lens is totes PRO.

- A


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 12, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> 1) Depth of field is not a property of the lens alone, it's a property of the _lens and sensor size combined_.


Actually the only part of the gear that matters for DOF is the aperture size, keep the aperture at 5cm for example and it doesn't matter a bit what focal length or sensor size you have.


----------



## aj1575 (Feb 12, 2020)

Sdiver2489 said:


> I'm not forgetting that, but saying it's an f8 lens is using the crop factor to compare DOF. Unless someone wants to tell me how an f4 lens on MFT is different than any other lens on a different system.



It really is difficult to understand. The lens itself is an f4; but imagine, you mount an EF-S lens on a Full Frame body, you will get heavy vignetting. This is because the lens is designed for a smaller sensor. The focal length compared to what the sensor sees from the same spot is also different.
If you look at the amount of light hitting the sensor while shooting the same picture (with different sensor sizes), than an MFT sensor needs a 2 stops better aperture for the same amount of light hitting the sensor.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 12, 2020)

aj1575 said:


> It really is difficult to understand. The lens itself is an f4; but imagine, you mount an EF-S lens on a Full Frame body, you will get heavy vignetting. This is because the lens is designed for a smaller sensor. The focal length compared to what the sensor sees from the same spot is also different.
> If you look at the amount of light hitting the sensor while shooting the same picture (with different sensor sizes), than an MFT sensor needs a 2 stops better aperture for the same amount of light hitting the sensor.



Same absolute amount, yes. Same brightness, no. In the "There's an interesting bear/lion/eagle half a mile away" case both the exposure and DoF would be the same for the same f-stop, since it's the same as cropping the FF image in post to match the MFT crop.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Same absolute amount, yes. Same brightness, no. In the "There's an interesting bear/lion/eagle half a mile away" case both the exposure and DoF would be the same for the same f-stop, since it's the same as cropping the FF image in post to match the MFT crop.




I (truly) love that the Godwin's Law of CR Forums is sensor/FL equivalence and not Hitler. 

- A


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Feb 12, 2020)

Joules said:


> There are always things we would rather want. The real question for me is: what are the alternatives? You can't look at something in isolation and say it is good or bad. It may be a bad lens in comparison to others. But the only fair comparison would be zoom lenses with a similar range and price tag (< 500) and weight (< 400). Since clearly, those are the properties this lens was designed for: affordable and compact.
> 
> I can't think of any alternative right away, but I don't have a great overview on FF zoom lenses anyway. Are there other lenses with such parameters? In which regards are they better?



Well you're in luck. All you need is a handy EF to RF converter (often provided free with the cameras now) and your world has just exploded with lens opportunities. The introduction of this lens, in my humble opinion, is for rubes that don't know better and think they're getting a bargain.


----------



## Sdiver2489 (Feb 12, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> 1) Depth of field is not a property of the lens alone, it's a property of the _lens and sensor size combined_.
> 
> 2) The Olympus lens _is also brand new_, announced today, in fact that was the whole point of the comparison.
> 
> ...



1) Actually sensor size does not directly affect DOF. Focal length does and aperture. The reason why we often refer to sensor size affecting DOF is because we frame lenses differently when they are affected by their crop factor. If you frame a picture the same on a crop camera, then the DOF is exactly identical.

And in regards to your second comment about the S10, you aren't taking into account computational photography. Smartphone users can simulate much smaller DOF than a F7.1 lens on their smartphone even though the FF equivalent may be less. You and I may not be satisfied with simulated DOF, but the more average consumer likely is and in order to differentiate itself, Canon has to give a compelling reason for people to carry around a dedicated camera and IMO this lens does not give them one.


----------



## Sdiver2489 (Feb 12, 2020)

aj1575 said:


> It really is difficult to understand. The lens itself is an f4; but imagine, you mount an EF-S lens on a Full Frame body, you will get heavy vignetting. This is because the lens is designed for a smaller sensor. The focal length compared to what the sensor sees from the same spot is also different.
> If you look at the amount of light hitting the sensor while shooting the same picture (with different sensor sizes), than an MFT sensor needs a 2 stops better aperture for the same amount of light hitting the sensor.



I've heard this argument and I just don't see eye to eye with it. I will agree that different sensors have different noise performance. However, just because a lens is designed for a smaller sensor does not make the exposure properties different. If I take a MFT camera and set it to F4, 1/250 ISO 100 and a Medium format camera and set it to F4, 1/250, ISO 100, I am going to get the same exposure. In fact sometimes the smaller sensor might be brighter due to the fact that lenses designer for larger sensors tend to have higher vignetting.

Yes, if you did a sum total of the light collected over the sensor area, the FF sensor will be higher because there is more area with the same amount of light. But it does not affect exposure. I've seen a number of people post thinking that on a crop camera they need a larger aperture to get the same exposure as a FF camera and arguments like these contribute to these mistakes IMO.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2020)

Sdiver2489 said:


> And in regards to your second comment about the S10, you aren't taking into account computational photography. Smartphone users can simulate much smaller DOF than a F7.1 lens on their smartphone even though the FF equivalent may be less. You and I may not be satisfied with simulated DOF, but the more average consumer likely is and in order to differentiate itself, Canon has to give a compelling reason for people to carry around a dedicated camera and IMO this lens does not give them one.




We _do_ take into account computational photography. It's a neat trick, I admit, but it really looks sub-par compared to basic wide open shooting on a large sensored rig. You don't need to print out those portrait mode cell phone shots and stand a foot away to see the bounding profiles between in field and out of field with the software. I (and I presume many here) prefer capturing subject isolation optically with quick glass and a large sensor.

Your premise appears to be that photography is all about subject isolation, and if a lens can't deliver that, it shouldn't be offered. That is farcical. Each lens Canon offers does not have justify the existence / utility / purpose of the camera it is attached to. Were that the case, we'd only carry lead pickle jars for extreme bokeh or ultra-specialized glass for wildlife or macro.

Some of us just want to take a snap of our vaca. Sometimes we want small and light. That doesn't mean buying the camera was a waste of time, or that we'll never put a fast prime on it.

- A


----------



## Act444 (Feb 12, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> 1) Depth of field is not a property of the lens alone, it's a property of the _lens and sensor size combined_.



Is this the case though? My understanding is that sensor size actually has no effect on DOF - rather, the reason larger sensors appear to produce shallower DOF than smaller ones is the necessity for longer focal length lenses to approximate the same field of view. Longer FL = less DOF. Also, for a given focal length, with a larger sensor camera you have to get closer to your subject to get the same framing. Lesser distance to subject = less DOF. Right?


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 12, 2020)

Act444 said:


> Longer FL = less DOF.


No. It is larger aperture (think in cm or mm) -> less dof. Longer lenses tend to have larger apertures.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 12, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> We _do_ take into account computational photography. It's a neat trick, I admit, but it really looks sub-par compared to basic wide open shooting on a large sensored rig.


Absolutely we do, yes it is, and yes it does. I will freely admit that an awful lot of people really wouldn't notice the difference, but my assumption would be that those are not the people who are potentially upgrading to FF mirrorless, because they're happy with their phones.

The depth of field / subject isolation thing needs a more complicated reply which I can't do right now, but I'll try to come back with something in the fullness of time.


----------



## Sdiver2489 (Feb 12, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> We _do_ take into account computational photography. It's a neat trick, I admit, but it really looks sub-par compared to basic wide open shooting on a large sensored rig. You don't need to print out those portrait mode cell phone shots and stand a foot away to see the bounding profiles between in field and out of field with the software. I (and I presume many here) prefer capturing subject isolation optically with quick glass and a large sensor.
> 
> Your premise appears to be that photography is all about subject isolation, and if a lens can't deliver that, it shouldn't be offered. That is farcical. Each lens Canon offers does not have justify the existence / utility / purpose of the camera it is attached to. Were that the case, we'd only carry lead pickle jars for extreme bokeh or ultra-specialized glass for wildlife or macro.
> 
> ...



Camera manufacturers are facing a shrinking market from smart phones that are becoming more and more competitive with mirrorless cameras. One of the features that was always a major differentiator was the fact that small sensors were not capable of subject isolation. That is lost when you develop a F7.1 lens. That is my point. I never said no one should ever use F7.1. I said you lost one of the main benefits of large sensor cameras...one that people will notice.

Obviously there are different purposes for each lens, what I have been expressing is my opinion. I would never buy a F4-F7.1 lens. If you would...great. But I can buy constant F4 lenses readily available. I would never go less than this. If you would...more power to you!


----------



## Kit. (Feb 12, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> 1) Depth of field is not a property of the lens alone, it's a property of the _lens and sensor size combined_.


Let me put it this way:

All the parameters of the image, except for:
1. the particular placing of the plane of focus, 
2. optical aberrations, and
3. vignetting
- are already predetermined by how the light crosses the entrance pupil of the lens. Sensor size does not affect them.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 13, 2020)

The lens is announced! $399! (Technically, I called it! )









Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM Lens


Buy Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM Lens featuring RF-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format, STM Stepping AF Motor, Center Macro Focus, 1:2 Magnification, Optical Image Stabilizer, Customizable Control Ring, Rounded 7-Blade Diaphragm. Review Canon null




www.bhphotovideo.com





- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 13, 2020)

Promotional vid here -- wow are they leaning into the 24mm end of the macro!






- A


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 13, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Promotional vid here -- wow are they leaning into the 24mm end of the macro!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I get it. Perfect for a consumer grade product photography. Use cases: eBay listings, Craigslist, Gumtree, etc. INC social networking. Sure. For traveling however.... this one here. Any day...









Canon Patent application for a Canon RF 24-80mm f/4 #EOSR #EOSRP


Canon News discovered a patent application that features a Canon RF 24-80mm f/4. It's almost a given that like the EF mount, Canon will come out with a f/4 s



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Mateba (Feb 13, 2020)

Looking at the pictures, I see the control ring and the zoom ring, are there no manual focus ring on this?


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 13, 2020)

Mateba said:


> Looking at the pictures, I see the control ring and the zoom ring, are there no manual focus ring on this?



The control ring can be selected to be used as a focus ring.


----------



## Shellbo6901 (Feb 13, 2020)

besides the macro and the pricepoint... maybe the weight, why would one want this VS the other 24-105 RF's available? seems dumb IMO, even for the RP.


----------



## aj1575 (Feb 13, 2020)

Sdiver2489 said:


> Yes, if you did a sum total of the light collected over the sensor area, the FF sensor will be higher because there is more area with the same amount of light. But it does not affect exposure. I've seen a number of people post thinking that on a crop camera they need a larger aperture to get the same exposure as a FF camera and arguments like these contribute to these mistakes IMO.


Difficult it is... (I had to look it up myself to understand it better)

Let's say you shoot with an MFT (crop factor 2) with a 50mm f1.4. To get the same angle of view (the same frame) with a FF you need a 100mm lens. The aperture size (f-number) is calculated by the focal-length divided by the diameter of the aperture; same diameter means same amount of light. The 50mm has a diameter of 35.7mm at f1.4 (50/1.4). For the 100mm we get an aperture of 100mm/35.7mm = 2.8. So 50mm f1.4 on a MFT equals 100mm f2.8 on a FF, in terms of amount of light. But the FF sensor has 4 times the area of an MFT sensor. This means the amount of light per area is 4 times smaller on a FF sensor. On the other hand, with the same pixel count, the light per pixel would be the same.

I'm using APS-C, and think about switching to FF. My feeling is, that consumer lenses on a FF will be sharper than semi pro lenses on APS-C, because the pixel on the FF are bigger. I will have to do some internet research on that when the time comes for a new camera.


----------



## Eimajm (Feb 13, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Macro shooters: could this lens replace other lenses in your kit, or is the magnification
> 
> 
> SteveC said:
> ...





dominic_siu said:


> For me I need 1x magnification, so this lens can’t replace a true macro lens


Yup should be called pseudomacro lens Also won't be optimised for close focus like dedicated macros.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 13, 2020)

Shellbo6901 said:


> besides the macro and the pricepoint... maybe the weight, why would one want this VS the other 24-105 RF's available? seems dumb IMO, even for the RP.



Price is king. It's initial price is 400, which is a lot lower than the RF 24-105L. Just wait a couple years after the lens price falls. Something like the RP and this 24-105 lens for less than $1000. That is the target market.

Canon was criticized for leading with L-glass because there weren't enough consumer-grade options, and now that consumer grade options are coming it, it's not good enough...


----------



## Shellbo6901 (Feb 13, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> Price is king. It's initial price is 400, which is a lot lower than the RF 24-105L. Just wait a couple years after the lens price falls. Something like the RP and this 24-105 lens for less than $1000. That is the target market.
> 
> Canon was criticized for leading with L-glass because there weren't enough consumer-grade options, and now that consumer grade options are coming it, it's not good enough...


Its just the one zoom options that already been done, and then even added the 24 to 240, and when they took the 28-70, the next version was 24-70. but I guess taking it from non-macro to macro was the way they made it a tad different(so I kind of answered my question, but originally I didn't see macro... i will point out so far both the $400-500 RF lenses are macro, so I wonder if most will be, or what their resoning behind it is). The original 24-105 is normally $1099, but with the kit and when they put it on sale is around 899(I believe). I'm sure when the next version around the RP is out it will be a good fit.


----------



## goldenhusky (Feb 14, 2020)

For $400 this sounds like a great starter lens. Canon can give it away pretty much for free along with cheaper RF mount cameras.


----------



## Sdiver2489 (Feb 14, 2020)

aj1575 said:


> Difficult it is... (I had to look it up myself to understand it better)
> 
> Let's say you shoot with an MFT (crop factor 2) with a 50mm f1.4. To get the same angle of view (the same frame) with a FF you need a 100mm lens. The aperture size (f-number) is calculated by the focal-length divided by the diameter of the aperture; same diameter means same amount of light. The 50mm has a diameter of 35.7mm at f1.4 (50/1.4). For the 100mm we get an aperture of 100mm/35.7mm = 2.8. So 50mm f1.4 on a MFT equals 100mm f2.8 on a FF, in terms of amount of light. But the FF sensor has 4 times the area of an MFT sensor. This means the amount of light per area is 4 times smaller on a FF sensor. On the other hand, with the same pixel count, the light per pixel would be the same.
> 
> I'm using APS-C, and think about switching to FF. My feeling is, that consumer lenses on a FF will be sharper than semi pro lenses on APS-C, because the pixel on the FF are bigger. I will have to do some internet research on that when the time comes for a new camera.



The information presented here is absolutely true in terms of DOF equivalence. It cannot be true in terms of light gathering ability per pixel because otherwise if I mounted a APS-C lens to my a7riv, I should expect it to darker and it is not. The sensor is not compensating, the aperture sets the amount of light per pixel with everything else held equal.

Can you please post a link to where you looked this up?


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Feb 14, 2020)

aj1575 said:


> Difficult it is... (I had to look it up myself to understand it better)
> 
> Let's say you shoot with an MFT (crop factor 2) with a 50mm f1.4. To get the same angle of view (the same frame) with a FF you need a 100mm lens. The aperture size (f-number) is calculated by the focal-length divided by the diameter of the aperture; same diameter means same amount of light. The 50mm has a diameter of 35.7mm at f1.4 (50/1.4). For the 100mm we get an aperture of 100mm/35.7mm = 2.8. So 50mm f1.4 on a MFT equals 100mm f2.8 on a FF, in terms of amount of light. But the FF sensor has 4 times the area of an MFT sensor. This means the amount of light per area is 4 times smaller on a FF sensor. On the other hand, with the same pixel count, the light per pixel would be the same.
> 
> I'm using APS-C, and think about switching to FF. My feeling is, that consumer lenses on a FF will be sharper than semi pro lenses on APS-C, because the pixel on the FF are bigger. I will have to do some internet research on that when the time comes for a new camera.



I think you're getting caught up in the "physics" and engineering part of this. The beauty of the "F-stop" is that it is universal across all sensor sizes and lenses. Manufacturers design the size of the lens elements and aperture to produce consistent exposure at the same exposure settings across all sensor sizes and formats. As others have stated in terms of exposure, F2.8 is F2.8 regardless of sensor size or lens. In practical use for taking a photo, it doesn't matter physically how much light is collected in photons etc etc. The exposure is the same. If three people are next to each other, one with a full-frame 5D Mark IV, one with an APS-C 90D, and one with a tiny Canon G7 X Mark II, and they all set their cameras to F2.8 and same shutter speed and ISO, they're all getting the exact same exposure. The physics of how much light is going through the lens and how it is focused on what size sensor area etc etc is complicated. That's why it's so nice to be able to just know what exposure you're going to get at F5.6, shutter 1/1000th, ISO 100 regardless of camera, lens, or sensor.

Just for one example of something that is more complex than it might seem, is your example of the aperture in millimeters. What you wrote about the aperture in millimeters is not exactly accurate. The size of the "hole" in the lens in regards to exposure and especially depth of field, is not technically the physical aperture. It's the "entrance pupil". You may be thinking of the "aperture" as the size of the "physical" hole that is created by the blades of the diaphragm, but that's not what's important, nor is it what should be "measured" in your calculations. It is the size of the "entrance pupil" that is calculated when you divide the focal length by the F-stop. And the entrance pupil is not even a "real" or "physical" thing. It is, for lack of a better description, and "optical phenomenon", an "illusion". To put it in real terms like your example, a 100mm lens with the aperture set to the F4 would have an "entrance pupil" of 25mm (100/4). A 50mm lens with an aperture of F4 would have an entrance pupil of 12.5mm (50/4). This is regardless of sensor size. You can see this "illusion" in real life and get a better sense of it with the following example. Let's say you have a Canon 70-200mm F4L lens. You set the aperture to F4 and leave it there, so no matter what you zoom the lens to, the aperture will stay at F4. If you zoom the lens to 100mm, and you take off the front and back lens caps, and look through the lens from the front with F-stop set to F4, you will see the "entrance pupil" hole and it will "appear" to be 25mm large to your eye. That hole is an illusion, it is the "appearance" of the aperture blades as affected by the focal length you selected. While continuing to look through the lens, zoom to 200mm and you will see the "entrance pupil" grow from 25mm to 50mm. The illusion of the hole will have doubled in size as you doubled the focal length from 100mm to 200mm. Now the physical aperture blades haven't moved or changed size at all. The physical hole is the same at both focal lengths. They're still creating a hole however many millimeters in diamater. It's not relevant how many millimeters the physical hole is. What's relevant is the size of the entrance pupil.

Anyway, you get the idea of what I'm trying to say. It's much more complicated than just a few simple calculations of aperture sizes and sensor sizes. Manufacturers create the lenses with specific sizes of the elements and the diameter of the aperture blades to produce the exact amount of light required for that sensor size so that the F-stops work universally. That's the whole beauty. The system allows us to just enjoy photography with a universal system that works across all the different formats. Depth of field is a whole different story and has it's own calculations, but for now I'm just talking about exposure.

(For those interested in a brief comment about DoF, it is the size of the entrance pupil in millimeters that has a direct effect on Depth of Field) That's why full-frame has more depth of field than Micro Four Thirds. The larger the entrance pupil, the narrower the DoF. On a full frame camera, if you take a photo with a 100mm lens at F4, the entrance pupil is 25mm. The exact same photo and exposure on Micro Four Thirds would be taken with a 50mm at F4 (you would use 50mm to get FF equivalent focal length). So you would have same exact framing and exposure BUT the Micro Four Thirds photo would be taken with an entrance pupil of only 12.5mm, so not as much background blur as the Full Frame with an entrance pupil of 25mm).


----------



## aj1575 (Feb 14, 2020)

Travel_Photographer said:


> I think you're getting caught up in the "physics" and engineering part of this. The beauty of the "F-stop" is that it is universal across all sensor sizes and lenses. Manufacturers design the size of the lens elements and aperture to produce consistent exposure at the same exposure settings across all sensor sizes and formats. As others have stated in terms of exposure, F2.8 is F2.8 regardless of sensor size or lens. In practical use for taking a photo, it doesn't matter physically how much light is collected in photons etc etc. The exposure is the same. If three people are next to each other, one with a full-frame 5D Mark IV, one with an APS-C 90D, and one with a tiny Canon G7 X Mark II, and they all set their cameras to F2.8 and same shutter speed and ISO, they're all getting the exact same exposure. The physics of how much light is going through the lens and how it is focused on what size sensor area etc etc is complicated. That's why it's so nice to be able to just know what exposure you're going to get at F5.6, shutter 1/1000th, ISO 100 regardless of camera, lens, or sensor.


The problem with your example is, that the people with the 3 different cameras need to work at different focal length to get the same picture. Changing your focal length also changes the size of the aperture in the equation.
Just answer this question: If I take a 50mm f1.4 on a MFT camera, and like to take the same picture from the same spot with a FF camera, what Focal length / aperture combination do I have to choose to get the same exposure with the same shutter speed at the same ISO?


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Feb 14, 2020)

aj1575 said:


> Just answer this question: If I take a 50mm f1.4 on a MFT camera, and like to take the same picture from the same spot with a FF camera, what Focal length / aperture combination do I have to choose to get the same exposure with the same shutter speed at the same ISO?



Answer: 100mm lens, aperture F1.4, same shutter and ISO.

The best way to think about it is this. In *any* camera, the exposure is based on *only* three things: shutter speed, ISO, and F-Stop. It is a "standard" and "universal" exposure across all cameras for those three settings. Focal length, sensor size, etc. are not factored into the equation at all. It is just the shutter speed, ISO, and F-Stop across every camera, every manufacturer, every lens, every sensor. Pick the same three numbers for those three settings, and you will get the same exposure on any camera with any lens at any focal length.

Here's a handy calculator that I sometimes use. It shows the exposure values for any combination of the three settings. Notice how focal length and sensor size are not part of the calculator, because they are not part of the equation. This calculator works for all cameras, lenses, and sensors.






Equivalent Exposure Calculator, or Compare Any Two Camera Exposures


Find an Equivalent Exposure. How many stops difference? What are the EV numbers? Calculator computes the difference in any two camera exposures.



www.scantips.com


----------



## SteveC (Feb 14, 2020)

Travel_Photographer said:


> Answer: 100mm lens, aperture F1.4, same shutter and ISO.
> 
> The best way to think about it is this. In *any* camera, the exposure is based on *only* three things: shutter speed, ISO, and F-Stop. It is a "standard" and "universal" exposure across all cameras for those three settings. Focal length, sensor size, etc. are not factored into the equation at all. It is just the shutter speed, ISO, and F-Stop across every camera, every manufacturer, every lens, every sensor. Pick the same three numbers for those three settings, and you will get the same exposure on any camera with any lens at any focal length.
> 
> ...



It sounds like aj1575 doesn't have the same concept as to what "exposure" is that you do (I believe yours is correct). You've reduced yourself to simply asserting that X, Y, and Z don't affect exposure--the problem being that if he understands the term differently, you might be coming across nonsensically.

So with that I'll try to clarify what "exposure" actually means. In the end, exposure simply amounts to "how bright will the photo look." (OK, that's not quite the meaning yet--and *I* am new enough to possibly be off base.)

If your sensor doubles in size, sure, twice as much light will hit it (all else being the same; no fair switching out sensors then waiting for nighttime to take the comparison shot), BUT that light will be spread out over twice the area.

So more technically, exposure is the light per unit area, or you could even call it flux--except that you also have to factor in how sensitive the sensor is.

Because of this, as you've said, the only things that can affect it are shutter speed, ISO and F stop, and I'll explain why:

shutter speed is obvious...double the amount of time the shutter is open, double the amount of light that hits a unit area of the sensor.

ISO is actually compensating for light level by making the sensor more or less sensitive. Double the sensitivity, twice the exposure.

Aperture obviously will affect the exposure too--if light gets to come in through twice as wide an aperture, then four times (not twice) as much will hit the sensor. Four times because you're doubling the height and width of the aperture simultaneously and that means you are quadrupling the area of the aperture. The other wrinkle with aperture is that it must be given as a ratio of the focal length, because if you double the focal length, you will quarter the "cone" of light that makes it to the sensor with the same diameter aperture. So photography always speaks of f/2.0 (for instance) which, for a 100 mm lens = 100/2 = 50 mm. If you double the focal length, you're basically taking an image of something only twice as wide, therefore you're only collecting 1/4 of the light in the first place, so to compensate, you'd need to double your aperture. Rather than deal with this, when making comparisons it's easier to give the aperture as a fraction of the focal length, so you can compare what two lenses will do for exposure. F/2.0 will give the same exposure no matter the focal length. (Note: it's technically focal length, f, divided by a number, so it SHOULD be written with the slash or a colon, though many don't bother with that.)

Those, plus the ambient brightness (which is outside of the camera, and not controllable in the camera) are the only things that affect how much light hits the sensor _per unit area_ and how that sensor will respond to the light hitting it, which together govern how bright the picture will be.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 14, 2020)

freejay said:


> Well f8 would be one stop darker than 5.6. So 7.1 is about half a stop? It ("7.1") looks bad but seems to be not much difference to the typical 5.6...


My calculator suggests that 7.1 is about 0.68 stop smaller than 5.6. I doubt that the actual openings are that accurate.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 14, 2020)

Travel_Photographer said:


> And the entrance pupil is not even a "real" or "physical" thing. It is, for lack of a better description, and "optical phenomenon", an "illusion".


It might be called an "optical illusion", but the fact that you, as an object in the scene, see it when you look onto/into the lens, means that this "optical illusion" is what determines which rays of light from the scene are allowed to pass through the lens toward the sensor 

Which affects both the depth of field and the number of photons registered by the sensor per unit of time.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Feb 14, 2020)

Kit. said:


> It might be called an "optical illusion", but the fact that you, as an object in the scene, see it when you look onto/into the lens, means that this "optical illusion" is what determines which rays of light from the scene are allowed to pass through the lens toward the sensor
> 
> Which affects both the depth of field and the number of photons registered by the sensor per unit of time.



Agreed.


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 14, 2020)

Shellbo6901 said:


> besides the macro and the pricepoint... maybe the weight, why would one want this VS the other 24-105 RF's available? seems dumb IMO, even for the RP.


 Because it is much lighter. And also considerably smaller. And MUCH CHEAPER. There. Three good reasons.

It seems like Canon has given us a really good choice between the two 24-105 RF lenses. We have smaller, lighter and much more affordable - and we have the higher quality and cost L lens. Choose the one you want. Making them too similar apparently is what people here on the forum wanted. Makes no sense, but why is that not surprising.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Feb 14, 2020)

SteveC said:


> It sounds like aj1575 doesn't have the same concept as to what "exposure" is that you do (I believe yours is correct). You've reduced yourself to simply asserting that X, Y, and Z don't affect exposure--the problem being that if he understands the term differently, you might be coming across nonsensically.
> 
> So with that I'll try to clarify what "exposure" actually means. In the end, exposure simply amounts to "how bright will the photo look." (OK, that's not quite the meaning yet--and *I* am new enough to possibly be off base.)
> 
> ...



I think the disconnect may be because of the mixing and matching of terms from two different areas. There's the "photography" terms that we're all used to (and most just use only those) and then there are the "engineering" and "physical terms." They're not easily mixed and matched. For example,



aj1575 said:


> Changing your focal length also changes the size of the aperture in the equation.



From a "photography terminology" perspective, that is completely false. So I think that's where the confusion is. Changing the focal length does not change the size of the aperture. If it did, every time you changed lenses or zoomed a zoom lens your exposure would change based on the focal length. It does not. Pick an aperture, and change lenses and zoom all you want, the exposure will be identical.

Now from an "engineering" and "physics" perspective, the size of the "entrance pupil" (which remember is not even a "physical" thing,) does change "behind the scenes". But that is not the same as saying the "aperture" has changed, when discussing photography. If the aperture is set to F5.6, it is F5.6 regardless of what lens or focal length is being used.



aj1575 said:


> The aperture size (f-number) is calculated by the focal-length divided by the diameter of the aperture



I'm not sure what that means, but it isn't accurate. The appropriate formula is:

Focal length / F-stop = Size of the Entrance Pupil in millimeters

You start with the focal length and F-stop, and you derive the size of the entrance pupil in millimeters.

Once you select the F-stop, the entrance pupil will work its magic behind the scenes, widening and narrowing as it needs to in order to provide consistent exposure regardless of what focal length is selected. So if F5.6 produces the correct exposure for the scene, you can zoom all you want, or switch to your backup camera which may be a Micro Four Thirds, and use the exact aperture, shutter speed, and ISO, and you'll get the same exposure.

To summarize:

"Exposure" is set by selecting:
* Shutter Speed
* ISO
* F-number

(Notice there is NO mention of the physical size of the aperture opening or entrance pupil in the above. It is only those three things that combine to set exposure.)

Separately, there is the formula:

Entrance Pupil Size = Focal Length / F-number

(Notice there is no mention of exposure in that formula. It is purely a physical calculation with no reference to a resulting exposure).

Perhaps most importantly, In neither of the two relevant formulas is the word "aperture". If we talk about the whole thing using only the words shutter speed, ISO, F-number, and entrance pupil, it would make the discussion much more straightforward.


----------



## jd7 (Feb 14, 2020)

aj1575 said:


> Difficult it is... (I had to look it up myself to understand it better)
> 
> Let's say you shoot with an MFT (crop factor 2) with a 50mm f1.4. To get the same angle of view (the same frame) with a FF you need a 100mm lens. The aperture size (f-number) is calculated by the focal-length divided by the diameter of the aperture; same diameter means same amount of light. The 50mm has a diameter of 35.7mm at f1.4 (50/1.4). For the 100mm we get an aperture of 100mm/35.7mm = 2.8. So 50mm f1.4 on a MFT equals 100mm f2.8 on a FF, in terms of amount of light. But the FF sensor has 4 times the area of an MFT sensor. This means the amount of light per area is 4 times smaller on a FF sensor. On the other hand, with the same pixel count, the light per pixel would be the same.


I believe this is not altogether correct. 

Firstly, a 50mm f/1.4 on MFT is equivalent to a 100mm f/2.8 on full frame in terms of trying to produce images which are "equivalent" (at least very similar) in terms of framing and depth of field (assuming you are take photos of the same subject from the same spot, ie same perspective). However, from an "exposure" point of view, f/2.8 is still two stops "slower" than f/1.4, so if you use the same ISO, the full frame shot will be two stops dimmer than the MFT shot. (Let's leave aside any potential difference in quantum efficiency between two sensors!)

So, what does "exposure" mean? In what I've said above, I've used exposure in the way photographers often do, which is to refer to image brightness, ie light density on the sensor (light per unit area). However, exposure can also refer to the total light gathered by the sensor.

Going back to your example, from an "exposure" point of view, 50mm f/1.4 on MFT and 100m f/1.4 on full frame would give the same image brightness (at same ISO), ie the same light density on each part of the sensor. However, the full frame sensor has an area which is four times the area of the MFT sensor, so the full frame sensor gathers four times as much total light (total light exposure, if you like) than the MFT sensor. If you then view the images at the same output size (on a screen or in a print), you can think of the full frame image having four times as much total light packed into the same area you are viewing, which is important in giving full frame sensors a noise advantage.

However, if you take photos of the same subject from the same spot with a 50mm f/1.4 on MFT and a 100m f/1.4 on full frame, you will have the same perspective and angle of view, but the full frame will have shallower depth of field. That is because the distance to subject is the same in both cases, but the full frame shot is taken with a larger "aperture" (OK, entrance pupil as someone else has point out, ie apparent aperture, but let's not get too bogged down on that here). The point to remember is that although photographers often say they set their aperture to 1.4 or some other f stop number, f stop actually means _relative _aperture (ie aperture relative to focal length), not physical aperture (really entrance pupil). So, when we use f/1.4 on a 50mm lens and f/1.4 on a 100mm lens, we use the same _relative _aperture, but not the same physical aperture. In that case, the physical aperture when you use a 50mm lens at f/1.4 is 50mm / 1.4 = 35 mm, but when you use a 100mm lens at f/1.4 is 100mm / 1.4 = 71.43 mm.

Referring to relative aperture (f stop) allows consistent reference to image brightness (exposure in the sense of light density on the sensor) as we change focal lengths (and since it is referring to light density on the sensor, it does not change as sensor size changes). However, you need to factor in the physical aperture (entrance pupil) if you want to compare depth of field. You also need to factor in sensor size if you want to compare total light gathered (total exposure, if you like).

You might find this an interesting read: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

Hope that helps!


----------



## SteveC (Feb 15, 2020)

Travel_Photographer said:


> To summarize:
> 
> "Exposure" is set by selecting:
> * Shutter Speed
> ...



There is no mention of the physical size of the aperture, because it--or rather the entrance pupil which is what actually matters, is implicit in the F number. It's not that it doesn't matter, it's that it's being expressed in a different form. F number is a way of expressing the _relative_ size of the entrance pupil, rather than expressing it directly.

The F number is simply the entrance pupil in terms of the focal length, because what really matters for exposure is the ratio of the entrance pupil width to the focal length. Rather than burden photographers with doing that division every single time--it's simply labeled that way in the first place. It allows photographers to assume the exposure equivalent when they switch lenses and both are set to the same F/#, whereas if the entrance pupil were labeled in millimeters, they'd have to think to themselves, "hmm, with the 100mm lens I had a 25mm entrance pupil, so I'd better set the entrance pupil on my 50mm to 12.5." Instead, they can just see f/4 is the setting on the one lens and apply that setting to the other lens.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 15, 2020)

BillB said:


> Canon seems to have fallen in love with 24-105 as the range for basic consumer normal zooms. I guess they have the marketing numbers to back it up. Being Canon, they seem unfazed by Nikon's 24-120. Apparently Canon thinks the good magic number 105 trumps the not so good magic number 7.1.


I got the non-L 24-105 as my kit lens with the 6D2. I’ve been pleased with it as my general-purpose lens. For my travel camera, I used the G7X II for three years, and found it’s 24-100 equivalence just as useful. For interiors and scenic vistas, I have needed something wider, and rarely missed a longer focal length. Perhaps that effective similarity of range has made me more comfortable going between the two cameras. For my fall trip, I upgraded to the G5X II, and did occasionally zoom in to the 120mm equivalent (and appreciated the popup EVF in bright sunlight). So I can see the 24-105 as a good range for a kit/starter lens one could live with. My 24-105mm is just f/5.6, so I don’t see the 2/3 stop loss of the 7.1 as that much of a drawback in real life. The noise from a modern full-frame sensor shouldn’t be noticeably worse at ISO 3200 than at 2000, for example.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 15, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> +1 of course.
> 
> So I've added or interchanged 'hockey dads' into my soccer mom statements the last few years. When I've said soccer moms before, the point was never that women somehow uniquely require a simple / low-tech camera (which is a ridiculous notion to hold) -- the point is that some folks just want to take snaps of the fam and not require climbing up the mode dial or discussing gear in forums to do it. One gender does not have a monopoly on that user need.
> 
> ...


My soccer mom stereotype has more to do with vehicles than cameras. They are usually the ones in vehicles that can chauffeur around half the team.

My sports parents image is of women and men (about equal numbers) shooting with 7Ds, or at least aspiring to one. That fits the ones I’ve known.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 15, 2020)

ashmadux said:


> It's still a joke of an aperature. Even for a budget lens.


Yes. You’d never catch Ansel Adams shooting at f/7.1.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 15, 2020)

jd7 said:


> So, what does "exposure" mean? In what I've said above, I've used exposure in the way photographers often do, which is to refer to image brightness, ie light density on the sensor (light per unit area). However, exposure can also refer to the total light gathered by the sensor.


I think that using terms in non-standard ways is what increases confusion, not reduces it.

Exposure, both in radiometry and in photometry, is _energy per unit of area_. Given that some important sensor quantities (full well capacity, dark current noise) are proportional to the sensor area for which they are measured, exposure is a quantity that is important in describing non-linear effects (highlights cutout and, partially, very deep shadow noise) of the sensor converting photons to electrons. But that's it.

When we talk about the innate quantum noise of the light itself, what is important is not energy per unit of area, but energy per sensor (for photographers) or energy per pixel (for pixel-peepers).

The result of full well capacity being proportional to the sensor area is that the modern sensors, irrespective of their size, have their native ISO (as measured by their full well capacity) slightly below ISO 100. Which means that we cannot always compensate higher amounts of light noise of the smaller sensor by increasing the exposure. Once we pass the exposure equivalent of ISO 100, we will start to lose highlights.


----------



## aj1575 (Feb 15, 2020)

Travel_Photographer said:


> If the aperture is set to F5.6, it is F5.6 regardless of what lens or focal length is being used.
> 
> I'm not sure what that means, but it isn't accurate. The appropriate formula is:
> 
> ...


Sorry for mixing up the entrance pupil and the aperture (I have to translate everything).

I think the interesting point from an engineering standpoint is, that you actually need to start with the focal length and the entrance pupil, because they are given by physics; that's what you see when you draw the path of the light. The f-number is just a number, that can be calculated with those two physical properties of a lens. (you can't measure the entrance pupil on a lens, but you measure it when you draw the path of the light).

This means the f-number in itself is not a given it is determined by the focal length and the entrance pupil, like the acceleration of a car, that is determined by its engines torque and the cars weight.

So when we are talking about f-number, we actually always talk also about focal length and entrance pupil, because the f-number is defined by them.


----------



## aj1575 (Feb 15, 2020)

Travel_Photographer said:


> I think the disconnect may be because of the mixing and matching of terms from two different areas. There's the "photography" terms that we're all used to (and most just use only those) and then there are the "engineering" and "physical terms." They're not easily mixed and matched. For example,



I think I have found the problem. When we look back when we were still using film, the ISO showed us how sensitiv the film was, no matter how big the area of the film was; the same amount of light on a certain area gave the same exposure, and to expose a bigger film you needed more light.
With digital, the situation changed. Basically the amount of light on the whole sensor is relative to the quality. (I know that is not entirely correct, but close enough). The same amount of photons on a 20MP APS-C sensor, gives about the same IQ as on a 20MP FF sensor. Usually FF sensors will see more light, so they tend to have better IQ. Fewer photons per pixel mean more noise. The ISO on a digital camera is just a gain in the calculation of the data.

Conclusion, you were correct with the ISO, aperture, shutter speed numbers. But in terms of pure IQ (same amount of photons an a pixel), my view was no wrong (since the ISO on digital camera are not what they used to be on film).


----------



## Kit. (Feb 15, 2020)

aj1575 said:


> When we look back when we were still using film, the ISO showed us how sensitiv the film was, no matter how big the area of the film was; the same amount of light on a certain area gave the same exposure, and to expose a bigger film you needed more light.


First of all, when we were still using film, we were typically using higher exposures by necessity (try to find a color ISO 3200 film, for example), while the sensor itself was much noisier by its nature. As a result, the photon noise was less important than the sensor noise.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 16, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Yes. You’d never catch Ansel Adams shooting at f/7.1.


You’d also never catch him shooting at 12 FPS or panning , etc. apologies for a sarcastic comment. I find your POV quite inconclusive. 

From my perspective, this lens should have been 28-90/4-5.6 Instead. 
you would remember Canon EF 28-90/4-5.6 lens from 2004? Small, light, inexpensive.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 16, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> You’d also never catch him shooting at 12 FPS or panning , etc. apologies for a sarcastic comment. I find your POV quite inconclusive.
> 
> From my perspective, this lens should have been 28-90/4-5.6 Instead.
> you would remember Canon EF 28-90/4-5.6 lens from 2004? Small, light, inexpensive.


It was sort of a joke. Sorry if I missed you on that. Adams was famously part of a group that called themselves Group f/64.

But it does suggest that maybe some decent photos can be shot at f/7.1, or maybe even smaller. In real life the difference between f/5.6 and f/7.1 is rather inconsequential. With image stabilization and good quality images at ISO 3200 in many full-frame bodies it becomes even less of an issue. It's more that f/7.1 sounds worse. DOF is not that different, either. 

I don't plan to buy the lens, and I may never buy a camera it would fit on anyway. I'm just amused at all the pearl clutching, mostly by folks who wouldn't have bought the lens either even if it had been f/5.6 instead.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 16, 2020)

stevelee said:


> It was sort of a joke. Sorry if I missed you on that. Adams was famously part of a group that called themselves Group f/64.
> 
> But it does suggest that maybe some decent photos can be shot at f/7.1, or maybe even smaller. In real life the difference between f/5.6 and f/7.1 is rather inconsequential. With image stabilization and good quality images at ISO 3200 in many full-frame bodies it becomes even less of an issue. It's more that f/7.1 sounds worse. DOF is not that different, either.
> 
> I don't plan to buy the lens, and I may never buy a camera it would fit on anyway. I'm just amused at all the pearl clutching, mostly by folks who wouldn't have bought the lens either even if it had been f/5.6 instead.


It doesn’t suggest though in fact that a real life difference of 2/3 stop is difference between shooting at a border acceptable ISO6400 and ISO10800-ish. Which is quite a difference once you cross that faint line of acceptable vs not so much. 
Again, in my humble opinion, for a kit lens I do not see why Canon neglected a possibility of introducing a 28-90/4-5.6 lens instead? On RF, it may have been even 24-90/4-5.6 That EF 28-90/4-5.6 lens was mighty popular on consumer Canon SLRs of early 00s


----------



## Kit. (Feb 16, 2020)

stevelee said:


> It was sort of a joke. Sorry if I missed you on that. Adams was famously part of a group that called themselves Group f/64.


Yeah, but f/7.1 on FF is quite close to f/64 on 8x10.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 17, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Yeah, but f/7.1 on FF is quite close to f/64 on 8x10.


OK. It was sort of lame for a joke, but you don’t have to rub that in.

I won’t retaliate, however, by reopening our recurring debates over what are actual equivalents.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 17, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> It doesn’t suggest though in fact that a real life difference of 2/3 stop is difference between shooting at a border acceptable ISO6400 and ISO10800-ish. Which is quite a difference once you cross that faint line of acceptable vs not so much.


Out of curiosity, I tried taking a few shots in a very dimly lit room at f/7.1 and ISO 6400 of a dark subject with a 100mm lens. The camera chose a shutter speed of 1/20 or 1/13 sec over a few tries, which is a bit marginal handheld with IS. If that is typical of conditions for your shoots, then this lens is obviously not for you. I would expect those in the target audience for this kit lens more likely would use flash or at least turn on a lamp in this situation. Also the lens would likely not be zoomed all the way in, so not limited to 7.1 in a fair-sized indoor room.

I didn’t pixel peep to try to see the difference between shots at ISO 6400 vs. the ones at whatever ISO I tried that was close to your 10800ish.

Cleary those shooting owls in flight should choose something else.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 17, 2020)

Hey, Steve

Just a couple of points. 
Use of flash is not always practical or even permitted. 
6400 vs 10800 iso point is just to demonstrate that 2/3 of a stop does matter for many use cases / applications. 
I don’t think you got my point sorry. 

Use case: cloudy conditions, shooting fast action (sports) outdoor with 100-400/ x-5.6 lens at shutter speeds around 1/2000 of a second. 
ISO range would be within the zone of comfort of 5D iV being around ISO 3200. With a Fx-7.1 lens instead I will already bring the iso 5600-ish plus. 

The realisation that f7.1 is a very limiting aperture would come with experience. 

I shoot with nothing slower than F2.8 indoors. Sure, stop down whenever possible but allow for poor light and no flash allowed.


----------



## Pape (Feb 17, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Hey, Steve
> 
> Just a couple of points.
> Use of flash is not always practical or even permitted.
> ...


10800 iso looks ok on 50% magnificiation ,most peoples wont do big prints or got 8k computer screen.
Ok i guess my eyes arent very experienced . but same goes to most of photograpers


----------



## stevelee (Feb 17, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Hey, Steve
> 
> Just a couple of points.
> Use of flash is not always practical or even permitted.
> ...


And my experience suggests that the marginal situation is unusual enough for kit lens usage. No one is claiming that the lens is the one lens to replace them all.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 17, 2020)

stevelee said:


> And my experience suggests that the marginal situation is unusual enough for kit lens usage. No one is claiming that the lens is the one lens to replace them all.


marginal situation? not really... situations take place regardless what lens you got on your camera at the time. .. you shoot with what you got and you better have something that can do the job ask event shooters, PJs , indoor sport shooters. Even as a travelling kit, the lens is limiting. it is ok in a good light. that is all it is good for. there is a host of 28-80, 28-90, 35-80 / 4-5.6 EF kit legacy zoom lenses that are light , compact and aren't exactly great. but at least 2/3 stop faster.
Anyway.. lets leave it there. it does not worth our time.
here is a worthy contender:









Patent: Canon RF 24-80mm f/4L IS & more


A patent showing a couple of higher-end Canon EOS R kit lenses has made its way to the public eye. One of the optical formulas in this parent is for an RF 24-10



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 17, 2020)

Pape said:


> 10800 iso looks ok on 50% magnificiation ,most peoples wont do big prints or got 8k computer screen.
> Ok i guess my eyes arent very experienced . but same goes to most of photograpers


no, my friend. Sorry. 10800 looks crap even on 5dIV. I would not speak for most photographers, 6400 on 5DIV looks descent after proper de-noising. 10800 is over the limit. you loose details, contrast, etc.


----------



## JustUs7 (Feb 17, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> no, my friend. Sorry. 10800 looks crap even on 5dIV. I would not speak for most photographers, 6400 on 5DIV looks descent after proper de-noising. 10800 is over the limit. you loose details, contrast, etc.



I see statements like these a lot on here. I think I understand why. My question is, if everyone bags on ISO’s much higher than 6400, why do camera companies keep making native iso ranges higher and higher? 40,000 for the RP, 50,000 plus for the R, etc...

Are there times when a pro would go there and be glad they were able to?


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 17, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> I see statements like these a lot on here. I think I understand why. My question is, if everyone bags on ISO’s much higher than 6400, why do camera companies keep making native iso ranges higher and higher? 40,000 for the RP, 50,000 plus for the R, etc...
> 
> Are there times when a pro would go there and be glad they were able to?


ISO 40,000? sure, why not. Black and White.. any day..if you had to.


----------



## ashmadux (Feb 28, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Yes. You’d never catch Ansel Adams shooting at f/7.1.



 wat


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 28, 2020)

No one is saying the lens is for everyone. It is OBVIOUSLY a cheaper, lighter and smaller alternative to an L lens meant for those who are not shooting wide open all the time. For those thinking that 2/3rds of a stop is a deal breaker - fine, but don't assume your opinion is the same for everyone. For those who think 10800 ISO produces "crap" don't assume that your opinion is the majority or even held by many. 

Attached a comparison image between 5.6 and 7.1 - all other settings the same (ISO 3200) indoor, night time shot. Also a pic at 12800 ISO, f/4. Everyone can decide for themselves if 7.1 really matters or not. EOS R.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 28, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> I see statements like these a lot on here. I think I understand why. My question is, if everyone bags on ISO’s much higher than 6400, why do camera companies keep making native iso ranges higher and higher? 40,000 for the RP, 50,000 plus for the R, etc...



I suspect marketing has a lot to do with it, to allow the manufacturer to say, "this camera is better/greater than the one it's replacing." ISO 3,000,000 sounds great to put down on a spec sheet. There may indeed be an actual difference on the sensor level, or, more likely, it may simply be processor-based noise "magic" at play.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 29, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> No one is saying the lens is for everyone. It is OBVIOUSLY a cheaper, lighter and smaller alternative to an L lens meant for those who are not shooting wide open all the time. For those thinking that 2/3rds of a stop is a deal breaker - fine, but don't assume your opinion is the same for everyone. For those who think 10800 ISO produces "crap" don't assume that your opinion is the majority or even held by many.
> 
> Attached a comparison image between 5.6 and 7.1 - all other settings the same (ISO 3200) indoor, night time shot. Also a pic at 12800 ISO, f/4. Everyone can decide for themselves if 7.1 really matters or not. EOS R.
> 
> ...



yeah. ISO 12800 file down-sampled to 2048 x 1366 pixels. if that is your default image output resolution than sure. lets look at a full res output. shall we..

please retain EXIF information. I am really curious now. Thanks.

p.s. 5.6 vs 7.1 shots above. they differ from each other. quite a lot. (exposure, focus, contrast, etc. etc. etc.) like chalk and cheese.


----------



## JustUs7 (Feb 29, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> yeah. ISO 12800 file down-sampled to 2048 x 1366 pixels. if that is your default image output resolution than sure. lets look at a full res output. shall we..
> 
> please retain EXIF information. I am really curious now. Thanks.
> 
> p.s. 5.6 vs 7.1 shots above. they differ from each other. quite a lot. (exposure, focus, contrast, etc. etc. etc.) like chalk and cheese.



Jumping in with a non-photographer view. Most people buying this lens for the RP aren’t producing art. They are capturing memories at a better quality than their phone can produce, and have the disposable income to spend $1,199 on a kit to do so. My guess on a future price anyway. 

Walking around outside at Disney, I was living at F8 - F11. Using the 24-240 was great for additional reach, but I could see really appreciating the weight savings for this one. Indoor, neither one is much good anyway and I used flash for character pictures with the kids and the 35mm 1.8 on dark rides.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 29, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> Jumping in with a non-photographer view. Most people buying this lens for the RP aren’t producing art. They are capturing memories at a better quality than their phone can produce, and have the disposable income to spend $1,199 on a kit to do so. My guess on a future price anyway.
> 
> Walking around outside at Disney, I was living at F8 - F11. Using the 24-240 was great for additional reach, but I could see really appreciating the weight savings for this one. Indoor, neither one is much good anyway and I used flash for character pictures with the kids and the 35mm 1.8 on dark rides.


++++ Jumping in with a non-photographer view.

Probably shouldn’t. .... as We discuss iso 12800 usability. 

++++ Most people buying this lens for the RP aren’t producing art. They are capturing memories at a better quality than their phone can produce, and have the disposable income to spend $1,199 on a kit to do so. 

What makes you think so? You are admitted to being a non photographer. what your judgement based on then? 

Phones are pretty capable these days. A dedicated Camera becoming utility for enthusiasts and pros only. Increasingly so. 
RP is a capable tool.


----------



## JustUs7 (Feb 29, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> What makes you think so? You are admitted to being a non photographer. what your judgement based on?



Spending $1,499 plus $450 on a fantastic kit to capture memories at a much better quality than my phone can do.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 29, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> Spending $1,499 plus $450 on a fantastic kit to capture memories at a much better quality than my phone can do.



+++++ They are capturing memories at a better quality than their phone can produce, and have the disposable income to spend $1,199 on a kit to do so.

Your case is rather an exception then: You spent $2,000.00 on a fantastic kit despite other non photographers have only a disposable income of $1,199 to spend on capturing their better than phone images of their memorable moments. Well, no. Those people do not have a habit of Hanging around photography related forums. Which in my books make you stand out in three instances so far. 
1. You spend nearly two time what you expect typical non photographer to spend on their kit. 
2. You are here engaging in photography related conversations
3. You have judgments about wide range of photography use cases and believe that your experience is adequate enough to speak with authority ( I refer to your post where you refer to your experiences with 24-200 lens, etc)

You are a photography enthusiast my friend. Not that mythical crowd who invest $1,199.00
In taking better pictures. They have invested in better iphones my friend that take better photos. 
And these phones are taking 100mpix photos, with multiple lenses (computational photography), offer in camera image editing, are connected and cognitive. 
That ship has sailed. Canon R cameras are Pro and enthusiast oriented. Here you have it.


----------



## JustUs7 (Mar 1, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> +++++ They are capturing memories at a better quality than their phone can produce, and have the disposable income to spend $1,199 on a kit to do so.
> 
> Your case is rather an exception then: You spent $2,000.00 on a fantastic kit despite other non photographers have only a disposable income of $1,199 to spend on capturing their better than phone images of their memorable moments. Well, no. Those people do not have a habit of Hanging around photography related forums. Which in my books make you stand out in three instances so far.
> 1. You spend nearly two time what you expect typical non photographer to spend on their kit.
> ...



I graduated to enthusiast! Barely knew that there was an exposure triangle around the first of the year. 

I do take this as a compliment. I really only think as someone trying to capture memories. 

But insomnia has paid dividends in much reading and watching post purchase. Happy with what I was able to capture this week in Disney World, but had some misses and wasn’t very confident as circumstances changed. Outdoor characters with the kids in the sun vs the shade vs in door under studio lights, etc. Lots to consider and far from intuitive.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 2, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> I graduated to enthusiast! Barely knew that there was an exposure triangle around the first of the year.
> 
> I do take this as a compliment. I really only think as someone trying to capture memories.
> 
> But insomnia has paid dividends in much reading and watching post purchase. Happy with what I was able to capture this week in Disney World, but had some misses and wasn’t very confident as circumstances changed. Outdoor characters with the kids in the sun vs the shade vs in door under studio lights, etc. Lots to consider and far from intuitive.


You have indeed entered a steep learning photography curve by now. You will gain an experience and better skills but please stay focused on The purpose and learn what you can. Technology is just a tool that assist in unleashing your creativity.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 2, 2020)

Don't get lost in a circle of confusion and be like the ships and planes lost in the exposure triangle.


----------

