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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 6, 2018)

> Canon’s new RF mount is going to be at the forefront of R&D going forward, and that should bring us a lot of optical formula patents for new RF lenses.
> A new patent application shows Canon possibility bringing the 24-70mm f/4L IS to the RF mount.
> *Canon RF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM:*
> Focal Length: 24.71 – 39.93 – 67.99
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 6, 2018)

This should be a (semi) affordable lens. The EF version is a great lens, if this one is better ( and I can't see how it wouldn't be) it would make the perfect kit lens. This will be an interesting few years as we see what new R lenses roll out and when.


----------



## Act444 (Dec 6, 2018)

I think a lens like this would be a better match for the R than the 24-105 which is a significantly bigger and heavier lens. 

Although the EF version is good overall, it has some glaring weaknesses. If they ditch the “macro” function and provide better IQ at normal MFD, a potential RF version could be a real winner.


----------



## kiwiengr (Dec 6, 2018)

So with a distinct lack of thought coming with EF lens, will we ever see another DSLR body?


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 6, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> This should be a (semi) affordable lens. The EF version is a great lens, if this one is better ( and I can't see how it wouldn't be) it would make the perfect kit lens. This will be an interesting few years as we see what new R lenses roll out and when.



I hope it comes out with a more reasonable price? Didn't the EF version first sell near 1500?!


----------



## ewg963 (Dec 6, 2018)

kiwiengr said:


> So with a distinct lack of thought coming with EF lens, will we ever see another DSLR body?


Great question...


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 6, 2018)

Act444 said:


> I think a lens like this would be a better match for the R than the 24-105 which is a significantly bigger and heavier lens.
> 
> Although the EF version is good overall, it has some glaring weaknesses. If they ditch the “macro” function and provide better IQ at normal MFD, a potential RF version could be a real winner.


What if they keep the macro AND provide better IQ overall? Isn't this the promised potential of the new mount? Macro type MFD is useful and fun for a walkaround or event lens. (Still, I'm surprised the RF 24-105mm wasn't significantly better than its mediocre EF counterpart.)


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 6, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> What if they keep the macro AND provide better IQ overall? Isn't this the promised potential of the new mount? Macro type MFD is useful and fun for a walkaround or event lens. (Still, I'm surprised the RF 24-105mm wasn't significantly better than its mediocre EF counterpart.)


The more time passes the more I wonder if the R was just rushed out the door so that they'd have something to show against Nikon's z6/z7. The new lenses for the RF mount are all spectacular, except for that one. It also seems to be the only one out of the bunch that seems to be truly just adapted for the close distance on the mount instead of being re-engineered or designed fresh for RF. I'm wondering if the new, cheaper RF mount camera will be what they really wanted to R to be, followed closely (or even at the same time) by a higher more pro body. 

I'm afraid Canon underestimated the want for mirrorless full frame and decided to put together something fairly quick. The lenses that Canon produces are second to none. But everyone else is catching up quick, especially Sigma which can be had for all mounts. If they don't produce on the software/hardware side their market dominance will start sliding pretty quick, especially with the new sensor improvements coming soon from sony sensor based cameras.


----------



## keithcooper (Dec 6, 2018)

If you look on the same Northlight page just below the lens info, there is a huge swathe of Canon US patent applications all dealing with mount communications/design and the electronic communications for adapters of all sorts (inc. with lenses). Read through most of them putting the list together and there is probably stuff I missed (it is tedious after the first 5-6)

The key is that there are high speed comms capabilities for the adapters and lenses , all running through the RF mount. I see this as a lot of future proofing for smart stuff using RF mount.

The follow on from that is that smart stuff is not going to be using EF...


----------



## Architect1776 (Dec 6, 2018)

Act444 said:


> I think a lens like this would be a better match for the R than the 24-105 which is a significantly bigger and heavier lens.
> 
> Although the EF version is good overall, it has some glaring weaknesses. If they ditch the “macro” function and provide better IQ at normal MFD, a potential RF version could be a real winner.



I disagree about the 24-105. I chose it primarily because of the greater range. 24-70 doesn't cut it. In fact I would really prefer the 24-120 that Nikon has for my general purpose lens.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 6, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> This should be a (semi) affordable lens. The EF version is a great lens, if this one is better ( and I can't see how it wouldn't be) it would make the perfect kit lens. This will be an interesting few years as we see what new R lenses roll out and when.


So true! Esp. the last sentence.
I am so glad that I am well equipped with gear and have no need to act now. 
If I was to jump into a system today I'd be a little bit confused


----------



## Act444 (Dec 6, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> *What if they keep the macro AND provide better IQ overall?* Isn't this the promised potential of the new mount? Macro type MFD is useful and fun for a walkaround or event lens. (Still, I'm surprised the RF 24-105mm wasn't significantly better than its mediocre EF counterpart.)



If that is optically achievable then sure. But I’d rather not have any design compromises as I’m assuming one had to be made to allow the lens to focus at macro distance.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 6, 2018)

Maximilian said:


> So true! Esp. the last sentence.
> I am so glad that I am well equipped with gear and have no need to act now.
> If I was to jump into a system today I'd be a little bit confused


same here.

I expect that I will eventually jump to R, but only when I see a killer feature/spec that isn't covered by my existing cameras, and at that point I will be looking at lenses that compliment my existing ones.


----------



## Act444 (Dec 6, 2018)

Architect1776 said:


> I disagree about the 24-105. I chose it primarily because of the greater range. 24-70 doesn't cut it. In fact I would really prefer the 24-120 that Nikon has for my general purpose lens.



I don’t doubt that the 24-105 can make a good “one lens fits all” travel package. However I still see ML as a smaller alternative to a DSLR setup. The R and 24-105, while smaller than, say, a 5D, is still a substantial and conspicuous camera. I think smaller lenses like the 35 1.8 are better suited to the R’s size, and if a high-quality 24-70 f4 can be made (like what Nikon has for the Z system) then, IMO, it could help make the R series a better complement to a 5D/1D rig.


----------



## Aaron D (Dec 6, 2018)

criscokkat said:


> The more time passes the more I wonder if the R was just rushed out the door so that they'd have something to show against Nikon's z6/z7.



I agree that the R is not entirely ironed-out, but Canon really did put an exceptional amount of thought into it. They completely re-thought the control layout. Seems like they took cues from smart phones that understand which actions go with which tasks and take away the rest. Nikon has all the same old buttons scattered around the body and has packed their viewfinder with every possible little icon. Canon has all that clutter available if you want it, but you can also clear out all but the essentials. And the dials and buttons and top display all do multiple tasks, but not all at once. I really find it refreshing. I want to take photos, not surf menus. Not that it's been a perfect transition! I've damn near thrown the thing at a wall trying to figure it out!

And I've never seen any mention of the focus aid for manual focusing—this is sheer genius! My eyes are accelerating into old age—this feature alone will keep me in business another ten years!

OK I'm rambling…...


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 6, 2018)

The "same old buttons" and dials work just as well now as ever, especially for locking in Av/Tv/M/B. I still haven't heard a positive word about the M. Fn. strip along the top of the back. I'd rather smartphone users learn standardized buttons than experienced photographers learn to use a FF camera like a smartphone. 

Nice that the viewfinder can be decluttered. A "focus aid" sounds promising.

Now for a body that boasts tried and true ergonomics.


----------



## Dantana (Dec 6, 2018)

"Act444 said:
I think a lens like this would be a better match for the R than the 24-105 which is a significantly bigger and heavier lens.

Although the EF version is good overall, it has some glaring weaknesses. If they ditch the “macro” function and provide better IQ at normal MFD, a potential RF version could be a real winner."



Architect1776 said:


> I disagree about the 24-105. I chose it primarily because of the greater range. 24-70 doesn't cut it. In fact I would really prefer the 24-120 that Nikon has for my general purpose lens.



You're both right!

Which is why both lenses and the ability to choose between them exist.


----------



## Aaron D (Dec 6, 2018)

How did you make the leap from: "Seems like they took cues from smart phones…" to:



YuengLinger said:


> I'd rather smartphone users learn standardized buttons than experienced photographers learn to use a FF camera like a smartphone.


----------



## timmy_650 (Dec 6, 2018)

I love it, it feels like ever post about a new lens for the R mount. Someone complains about it not coming for the EF mount or EF mount is dead. There isn't many holes in the EF line up (expect for a 50mm f1.4). They are making new revision of EF lenses with a different white paint. I don't want 24-70 m3 with a new blacker paint. ha ha. Granted Canon could put out more lenses for the EF line up and I would be happy but I am pretty happy with there coverage from 11mm - 800mm.


----------



## Aaron D (Dec 6, 2018)

I am so anxious to see what's next in standard zooms. I could love the 24-105, but I could also trade the added range for the subject isolating a 24-70 2.8 would give. BUT I really like the idea of a compact 24-70 f4.0…….

This waiting is tough!


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 6, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> ... eventually jump to R, but only when I see a killer feature/spec ...


Personally I see that the new AF system seems to be very powerful and we haven't seen it's true potential yet.
We will see it with a 5D4 successor in the R system (?) or an 1DX2 equivalent body.

Until then my only true question is if there will be a 5D5 or if Canon will evolve the R system so fast, that the EOS D / EF system is already about to die.
Future will tell and it will be an interseting one.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 6, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> How did you make the leap from: "Seems like they took cues from smart phones…" to:


I eats my spinach, is all.

Smartphone users enjoy having an adequate camera on a device they have with them all the time. To think having a FF camera body with controls similar to a smartphone would overcome the size issues, and to sacrifice excellent ergonomics developed over several decades just to appeal to smartphone fans, is seeing the problem through a badly distorted lens.

I don't need to drive a car that has a touch-pad instead of a steering wheel to know I prefer a steering wheel. We don't have to try EVERYTHING to know we wouldn't like it. Take tetanus, for another example.

Certainly the R appears to be usable and will take great photos. But it also has some head-scratching ergonomics.

As for the ef 24-70mm f/4L IS, to me it seemed like an answer to a question few photographers had asked. Certainly IS would be welcome on an f/2.8 version, but f/4 is just a stop too slow for flexible event use, and 70mm just too short for a well-rounded portrait or travel lens.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 6, 2018)

kiwiengr said:


> So with a distinct lack of thought coming with EF lens, will we ever see another DSLR body?



Maybe EOS 40000D with lens set for 249$ with ... 18MPix sensor ...


----------



## dak723 (Dec 6, 2018)

kiwiengr said:


> So with a distinct lack of thought coming with EF lens, will we ever see another DSLR body?



Three new DSLRs are listed in the certification announcements for 2019.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 6, 2018)

About that lens: f/4 with a FF body AND IS is a great combination to have (1) a compact setup at (2) reasonable price and (3) with strong reserves for static objects in low light - if it has excellent IQ (and at least very good IQ in the corners) and costs around 1000 EUR it will be a dream lens for common photography and especially landscape/townscape.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 6, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I eats my spinach, is all.
> 
> Smartphone users enjoy having an adequate camera on a device they have with them all the time. To think having a FF camera body with controls similar to a smartphone would overcome the size issues, and to sacrifice excellent ergonomics developed over several decades just to appeal to smartphone fans, is seeing the problem through a badly distorted lens.
> 
> ...



Interesting......

I chose the 24-70F4 as my walk-about lens over the 24-105 because it is a sharper lens and has the Macro function, and F4 is a lot lighter to carry around than F2.8, but that's just me.... 

BTW, my better half has the 24-105 and prefers my 24-70....


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 6, 2018)

Act444 said:


> I think a lens like this would be a better match for the R than the 24-105 which is a significantly bigger and heavier lens.
> 
> Although the EF version is good overall, it has some glaring weaknesses. If they ditch the “macro” function and provide better IQ at normal MFD, a potential RF version could be a real winner.


I hope they WON'T make without the macro function, which I often use when leaving home for the woods with one single lens!


----------



## 4fun (Dec 6, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Three new DSLRs are listed in the certification announcements for 2019.



EOS 5000D, 7000D, 9000D. mirror, slap slap!


----------



## 4fun (Dec 6, 2018)

RF 24-70/4 IS STM for 499 should have been the very first RF (kit) lens really. It would go well with the mirrorfree 6D III. Instead of the 28-70/2.0 folly.

Nikon got that one right for Z mount. But then, they also did the f/0.95 manual focus lens lunacy.


----------



## noms78 (Dec 6, 2018)

I bought the EF24-70 F4 IS instead of the EF24-105 F4 IS because it was sharper and had less barrel distortion. Zooms with shorter ranges usually outperform those with longer ranges. I'm guessing the RF24-70 F4 IS will outperform than the RF24-105 F4 IS at all focal lengths.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 6, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> I hope they WON'T make without the macro function, which I often use when leaving home for the woods with one single lens!



My standard pelican case for paddling (when there are not long portages) is a 7D2 with a Tamron 150-600 G2 and a 6D2 with a 24-70F4. Go long, or go wide and/or close....


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 6, 2018)

I wonder how many photographers are using a 24-70 with APS-C?


----------



## flip314 (Dec 6, 2018)

Personally I'm much more excited about an RF 24-70 f2.8 IS... I'm not holding out much hope anymore that we'll ever see that lens in EF though...



YuengLinger said:


> I wonder how many photographers are using a 24-70 with APS-C?



24mm is not really wide enough for an all-purpose zoom on APS-C. You could almost make the argument for a 2.8, but at f4 I think it's a hard range to sell. I love my 18-135 EF-S, but I think even the 18-55 EF-S is a better choice on crop sensors.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 7, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I wonder how many photographers are using a 24-70 with APS-C?


Interesting question.... I have a crop camera and a 24-70 and never use them together.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Dec 7, 2018)

criscokkat said:


> The more time passes the more I wonder if the R was just rushed out the door so that they'd have something to show against Nikon's z6/z7. The new lenses for the RF mount are all spectacular, except for that one.



I actually own an EOS R, so there's no wondering on my part about the body, or the RF 50mm and EF lenses I'm using with it. I barely pick up my 5DS lately, and already have some funds set aside for the next EOS R pro upgrade. But I won't be selling the first EOS R. Pretty hard to imagine the EOS R being "rushed out the door" when it includes some features even Sony doesn't have, and makes EF lenses function even better than before. Not a perfect camera, but far from a rushed camera. At least in my experience with using it.

A new RF 24-70 f/4 sounds nice if it has IS, but I'm curious what feature it may offer that sets it apart from the RF 24-105mm because that lens is stellar.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 7, 2018)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> A new RF 24-70 f/4 sounds nice if it has IS, but I'm curious what feature it may offer that sets it apart from the RF 24-105mm because that lens is stellar.



size and price, hopefully.

RF 24-105 is far from "stellar". it is "decent". 40% higher price than EF Mk. II, but IQ, size, weight not really better. IQ is behind Sony.

Personally i'd prefer a "decent IQ", compact and well-affordable (500 €) "non-L" RF 24-*85*/4 IS STM rather than a 24-70 4 L at more than a grand. the (very good) Nikon Z 24-70/4 is about 600 in kit with Z6. will be interesting to see comparison, if/when Canon launches the lens.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 7, 2018)

4fun said:


> size and price, hopefully.
> 
> RF 24-105 is far from "stellar". it is "decent", but IQ is not really better than the EF versions and a bit behind the Sony. the RF also fails to deliver on the potential for more compact lens designs possible with the new short FFD mount.It is not noticably smaller or lighter than the EF versions.given the much higher price the RF 24-105 is "ok" at best.



I know that was TDP's conclusion too, but the RF 24-105 images I've seen around the internet have made me think the RF 24-105 is a step up on the EF versions. It looks pretty good to me. In fact, of the four the RF lenses so far, I think this is probably the one I'd be most keen to get (given the photography I do). R + RF 24-105 would be similar size and weight to my 6DII + 24-70/4 and I'd like the extra reach, although I'd miss the macro feature. Anyway, I'm keen to hear opinions about the RF 24-105 from people who have it and have or have had an EF version.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 7, 2018)

jd7 said:


> I know that was TDP's conclusion too, but the RF 24-105 images I've seen around the internet have made me think the RF 24-105 is a step up on the EF versions. It looks pretty good to me. In fact, of the four the RF lenses so far, I think this is probably the one I'd be most keen to get (given the photography I do). R + RF 24-105 would be similar size and weight to my 6DII + 24-70/4 and I'd like the extra reach, although I'd miss the macro feature. Anyway, I'm keen to hear opinions about the RF 24-105 from people who have it and have or have had an EF version.



I hope that TDP had bad luck with its copy of the 24-105. (Did he try more than one?) Releasing a mediocre lens with the EOS R just doesn't seem to fit the story Canon is trying to tell about the potential of the RF mount. But then Canon disappointed with version two of the same lens, so, hard to know from the consumer's point of view.

I've certainly bought lenses that make reviews seem flat out wrong, but usually wrong about how _good _a lens is. Take the Tamron 45mm, for example. Please. Just take it. (OK, I must have had a bad copy!)


----------



## Ladislav (Dec 7, 2018)

I'm just trying to pick between EF 24-70/4 and 24-105/4 Mk.II. It is tough call... I like additional reach of the second one but the first one seems to be considered a sharper lens - not sure how much it is actually visible in real world situations.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 7, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> My standard pelican case for paddling (when there are not long portages) is a 7D2 with a Tamron 150-600 G2 and a 6D2 with a 24-70F4. Go long, or go wide and/or close....


Mine is similar: 100-400 L IS 2 + 24-70/f4 + 1,4 Ext.
So, if I don't want to carry heavy, I can cover macro + wide (24mm) to tele (560mm). And believe me or not, 1:1 macro is rarely needed, and hard to achieve without a tripod (heavy!).
As to macro quality of the 24-70/f4, I consider it to be quite good, my other macro lenses for comparison being the Leica Apo Macro Ellmarit 100/f2,8 and the Zeiss 50/f2 Makro Planar.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 7, 2018)

I wonder if the RF 24-105mm f/4L IS might be perceived as sharper than its EF predecessor because of a significantly better IS implementation?


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 7, 2018)

Ladislav said:


> I'm just trying to pick between EF 24-70/4 and 24-105/4 Mk.II. It is tough call... I like additional reach of the second one but the first one seems to be considered a sharper lens - not sure how much it is actually visible in real world situations.



I primarily use the 24-105 f/4 IS II for video, and use the 24-70 f/2.8 II for stills at the same time. I rarely use the 24-105 for stills, but I'm starting to. I like the 105 focal length better for portraits better than 70, and if 105 is good enough, then I'm not bringing a telephoto zoom. I know it's softer at the long end away from the center, but for impromptu portraits, it's more than adequate.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 7, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I wonder if the RF 24-105mm f/4L IS might be perceived as sharper than its EF predecessor because of a significantly better IS implementation?


I'm fairly sure that when they shoot comparison images (in a studio or lab) for lenses, that the cameras are tripod mounted and IS is turned off, and in this case it makes no difference. For people wandering around taking their own shots (real world useage) you are quite probably right; a better IS system gives less shake and therefore, a sharper picture. Similarly, a better AF system will do the same. If both are better, you end up with a lot of happy people


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 7, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> I primarily use the 24-105 f/4 IS II for video, and use the 24-70 f/2.8 II for stills at the same time. I rarely use the 24-105 for stills, but I'm starting to. I like the 105 focal length better for portraits better than 70, and if 105 is good enough, then I'm not bringing a telephoto zoom. I know it's softer at the long end away from the center, but for impromptu portraits, it's more than adequate.


We get caught up in gear talk so much, especially when it's about the next great thing. How many times have I read on CR that the 24-105 is a "just a kit lens"? As if it were an irrelevant lens meant for newbies... In fact, for years version-one was a workhorse among lifestyle and family portrait photographers because of its range of focal-lengths, good IQ, and IS. It was also heavily used in studio work. I know this from the great number of shots it was used for in PPA's Loan Collections and in issues of PPA and RANGEFINDER magazines, and from personal experience.

(I regret selling my version-one as part of the 5DIII kit it came with. You know, trying to milk a little extra $$$ from the sale by having original everything in the original box. On the other hand, I sold it anticipating version-two to be better! Doh!)

When many CR members dismissed the disappointing performance of version-two as unimportant because of its kit-lens status (and because it is simply futile to question the corporate wisdom of the Canon juggernaut), I realized that priorities here don't 100% align with those of working photographers.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 7, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> We get caught up in gear talk so much, especially when it's about the next great thing. How many times have I read on CR that the 24-105 is a "just a kit lens"? As if it were an irrelevant lens meant for newbies... In fact, for years version-one was a workhorse among lifestyle and family portrait photographers because of its range of focal-lengths, good IQ, and IS. It was also heavily used in studio work. I know this from the great number of shots it was used for in PPA's Loan Collections and in issues of PPA and RANGEFINDER magazines, and from personal experience.
> 
> (I regret selling my version-one as part of the 5DIII kit it came with. You know, trying to milk a little extra $$$ from the sale by having original everything in the original box. On the other hand, I sold it anticipating version-two to be better! Doh!)
> 
> When many CR members dismissed the disappointing performance of version-two as unimportant because of its kit-lens status (and because it is simply futile to question the corporate wisdom of the Canon juggernaut), I realized that priorities here don't 100% align with those of working photographers.



True, which is the reason why I never thought about it as a primary mid-range zoom. At the launch price, the 24-105 II was expensive, but I got a white box for slightly more than 700, which is reasonable. I thought the II IQ was similar to the original, and that the major differences were resistance to flare (coatings) and improved IS.

I think that since all 24-105s (Sony, Canon, Nikon, Sigma) are largely comparable and that they sit below the 24-70s IQ suggests that the limitation is the focal length range and not in the flaw of a company's lens design or due to intentional crippling.

With the RF 24-105, I don't think I'd bite with a RF 24-70 f/4. I'd rather supplement it with 24-70 f/2.8, although I would like to try out the 28-70 f/2 behemoth just for giggles.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 7, 2018)

jd7 said:


> ... but the RF 24-105 images I've seen around the internet have made me think the RF 24-105 is a step up on the EF versions.



i am referring to Canon's own whitepaper that includes a detailed MTF comparison of all their current 24-105 versions: EF L, EF non L, RF. in total, RF does not have a real IQ advantage, plus and minus pretty much even out. and this is firectly from Canon themselves who have every interest to not "undersell" the RF lens ... the current 40% surcharge over EF L is in no way justified. 

https://www.canonrumors.com/eosr/canon_eos_r_white_paper.pdf

page 22 ff.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 8, 2018)

4fun said:


> i am referring to Canon's own whitepaper that includes a detailed MTF comparison of all their current 24-105 versions: EF L, EF non L, RF. in total, RF does not have a real IQ advantage, plus and minus pretty much even out. and this is firectly from Canon themselves who have every interest to not "undersell" the RF lens ... the current 40% surcharge over EF L is in no way justified.
> 
> https://www.canonrumors.com/eosr/canon_eos_r_white_paper.pdf
> 
> page 22 ff.


Good point! Now you say it, I remember reading that when the whitepaper first became available but I'd forgotten about it. I felt like the RF 24-105 images I've been seeing around the internet were a little sharper than EF 24-105 images and the bokeh was a step up, but I guess maybe I'm just imagining it. I still may be interested in the RF 24-105 though, because of the size/weight, but we'll see.

Looking at the whitepaper again has reminded me the MTF curves for the RF 35/1.8 IS isn't so very different from the EF 35/2 IS MTF curves either. The EF 35/2 IS is a good lens and I like its size/weight, but I sold mind after trying and then buying a Sigma 35 Art. Not sure I could go back, even though having a small, light prime for general walk around use would be nice.

EDIT - perhaps the reason I have felt RF 24-105 images look a little better than EF 24-105 images is that all of the RF 24-105 images are being taken with the R's 30 MP sensor, while many EF 24-105 images are no doubt taken with lower resolution, older, sensors (and I am viewing images on the same size screen)? Of course, there will be some EF 24-105 images taken with the 5D IV and the 5Ds/R. If I get time I will see if I can find some taken with one/some of those cameras to compare against RF 24-105 images.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 8, 2018)

jd7 said:


> [..]
> EDIT - perhaps the reason I have felt RF 24-105 images look a little better than EF 24-105 images is that all of the RF 24-105 images are being taken with the R's 30 MP sensor, while many EF 24-105 images are no doubt taken with lower resolution, older, sensors (and I am viewing images on the same size screen)? Of course, there will be some EF 24-105 images taken with the 5D IV and the 5Ds/R. If I get time I will see if I can find some taken with one/some of those cameras to compare against RF 24-105 images.



TDP to the rescue!


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 8, 2018)

I think comparing Canon's MTFs could lead to wrong conclusions.
My feeling is that Canon COULD have changed some measurement algorithms. Therefore, me too, I'm relying on Brian's TDP review. Yet, on other websites, mostly European ones, it looks like the ER is noticeably the better lens.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 8, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> I think comparing Canon's MTFs could lead to wrong conclusions.
> My feeling is that Canon COULD have changed some measurement algorithms. Therefore, me too, I'm relying on Brian's TDP review. Yet, on other websites, mostly European ones, it looks like the ER is noticeably the better lens.


I feel like I've seen more positive reviews than "it's no better than the EF versions" reviews (like TDP), for whatever that's worth (but it may or may not be worth anything much). I'll be keen to see if the results if Lens Rentals tests it at some point. My assumption though is if Canon had changes the way it was calculating MTF curves, they would have made a point of mentioning that.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 8, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> ...
> on other websites, mostly European ones, it looks like the *ER *is noticeably the better lens.


ER? EF? RF? 
That typo is hard to unriddle 

But could you please post some links of those sites you are refering to? 
I'd like to get more info on that lens. Thanks in advance.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 8, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> I think comparing Canon's MTFs could lead to wrong conclusions.



i don't think so. I think it is the most relevant and factual information we can get on the subject. With sample variation a "very good" RF could possible be noticeably better than a "poor copy" of the EF in real life. But for a general, systematic, level playing field comparison of what IQ is to be expected from different, specific lens designs, nothing beats [calculated] MTF from the same source (Canon). Except "measured MTFs" as Zeiss does. Provided it is done on a large enough number of units under ceteris paribus conditions.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 8, 2018)

Maximilian said:


> ER? EF? RF?
> That typo is hard to unriddle
> 
> But could you please post some links of those sites you are refering to?
> I'd like to get more info on that lens. Thanks in advance.


Sorry, I was tired, I meant RF !.
Thanks for noticing the error.
As to the sites, I'm afraid I read, and forget where. Stupid me, apologies...

Memory turned (partly) back: Ephotozine UK


----------



## Aaron D (Dec 8, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> I think comparing Canon's MTFs could lead to wrong conclusions.
> My feeling is that Canon COULD have changed some measurement algorithms.



Yeah—and Bryan has said exactly that in a reply to my worries about the RF 35mm here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=30033#disqus_thread

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon is re-tooling to better illustrate test results. Seems like a lot of the new lenses are just straight lines across the top of the chart.

Update: I just went back to look at that white paper again—the new lenses really do compare well with their EF counterparts. And the MTF chart on the Canon USA site is not the same as in the white paper for the EF 35 f2


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Dec 8, 2018)

4fun said:


> size and price, hopefully.
> 
> RF 24-105 is far from "stellar". it is "decent". 40% higher price than EF Mk. II, but IQ, size, weight not really better. IQ is behind Sony.



For "white box" or "international" maybe, but on Amazon, B&H and Adorama the price is near equal for new lenses. So appears the cost check I just looked at. 

As for quality, the new RF is leaps beyond decent, otherwise you may not have seen shots yet from folks who have got the most out of the lens. I've been watching some samples on the POTN forums and a few folks are getting some exceptional shots.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Dec 8, 2018)

jd7 said:


> I know that was TDP's conclusion too, but the RF 24-105 images I've seen around the internet have made me think the RF 24-105 is a step up on the EF versions. It looks pretty good to me. In fact, of the four the RF lenses so far, I think this is probably the one I'd be most keen to get (given the photography I do). R + RF 24-105 would be similar size and weight to my 6DII + 24-70/4 and I'd like the extra reach, although I'd miss the macro feature. Anyway, I'm keen to hear opinions about the RF 24-105 from people who have it and have or have had an EF version.



What you noted relates to my reply back to user 4fun .... some samples I've seen from the RF 24-105 are at least a step up from the EF version ii if not more so. But the better shots I'm seeing are from people who own the lens rather than people temporarily testing the lens.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 8, 2018)

When I bought the 6D2 last year I got the non-L (or Noël) version of the kit lens, mostly for cost reasons. Reviews said it was as good as the L optically, just a smaller aperture at the long end, and that maybe the STM version would have some autofocus advantage in video or something. I didn't have great expectations, based on my Rebel kit lens from long ago, but I figured it would hold me until I decided what EF lenses to buy beyond what I had. I've found it to be more than adequate as my general purpose lens, and added nice L's at 16-35mm and 100-400mm.


----------



## BillB (Dec 8, 2018)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> For "white box" or "international" maybe, but on Amazon, B&H and Adorama the price is near equal for new lenses. So appears the cost check I just looked at.
> 
> As for quality, the new RF is leaps beyond decent, otherwise you may not have seen shots yet from folks who have got the most out of the lens. I've been watching some samples on the POTN forums and a few folks are getting some exceptional shots.


Figuring in the adapter for the EF , the RF 24-105 is smaller and lighter than the latest EF version by a good bit, and it does have the RF electronics. You may be able to get a discounted EF, but the Canon price is the same for the EF and the RF. It's hard to get a street price for a lens that hasn't been on the street.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 8, 2018)

RF 24-105 is optically not better than EF Mk. II, but 40% more expensive. RF is optically slightly behind Sony 24-105. No amount of fuzzy logic will change that. facts are facts.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 9, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if Canon is re-tooling to better illustrate test results.



You say tooling, and another user said measurements. It’s worth noting that unless canon has changed course, they generate these charts through design analysis, not measurement.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Dec 9, 2018)

4fun said:


> RF 24-105 is optically not better than EF Mk. II, but 40% more expensive. RF is optically slightly behind Sony 24-105. No amount of fuzzy logic will change that. facts are facts.



The only fuzzy logic I saw were your price quotes that don't align with well known sellers. You broken record of price estimation is still revolving if I keep doing the price checks again. As for quality, your assessment doesn't alight either with actual photos. You may be looking at stat sheets, but tangible real examples prove otherwise. Referring mostly to canon vs. canon that is. Canon vs. Sony, apparently Canon is made in Japan and offers an added extra control ring multiplying functionality, whereas Sony is made in China, and apparently functions very good.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 9, 2018)

4fun said:


> RF 24-105 is optically not better than EF Mk. II, but 40% more expensive. RF is optically slightly behind Sony 24-105. No amount of fuzzy logic will change that. facts are facts.


If you are basing your statement that the RF 24-105 is optically not better than the EF Mk II primarily on the MTF curves - and while I do understand why you might tend to put a lot of weight on the MTF curves - I think it's worth remembering the MTF curves use theoretical calculations (I think only Zeiss publishes measured MTFs?). I'm not sure how likely it is really, but perhaps the RF 24-105 gets closer to its theoretical values than the EF versions? Or perhaps the real point is just that in practical terms, the EF and RF lenses are good enough to take good photos when used well.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 9, 2018)

In reality all versions of Canon 24-105 are "ok", but none is "stellar". RF version is not better IQ-wise than EF L. Adding a control ring does not justify a significantly higher sales price as far as i am concerned.

Personally i don't care much for the control ring. to me it is yet another control element duplicated on every lens. i consider Nikon Z approach as much smarter, where focus ring on lens can be assigned as control ring. To me a better design for AF lenses, where manual focus is rarely needed, if ever.

best solution for me would be a multi-function ring on camera around lens mount, that can also be assigned as manual focus ring, when really needed. saving dedicated mono-functional focus rings on each lens.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 9, 2018)

Have actually used the Rf 24-105mm. Best lens I have ever used. I can't imagine anyone who thinks this lens is just "OK". That definition is jut the usual internet BS by folks with an agenda.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 9, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Have actually used the Rf 24-105mm. Best lens I have ever used.



Happy for you. But mainly dependent on which lenses/cameras you have used before. Very subjective BS. MTF curves are objective.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 9, 2018)

4fun said:


> Happy for you. But mainly dependent on which lenses/cameras you have used before. Very subjective BS. MTF curves are objective.


MTF curves do not show IS performance, nor do they indicate how well the AF of the lens is on the R body. Nor do they show the personal preferences of the user. If he is talking about a general purpose walk-about lens, I can understand the claim "best lens I have ever used". Beats the heck out of a big white to carry.

That said, a more accurate claim would be "best lens/body combo I have ever carried".


----------



## 4fun (Dec 10, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> MTF curves do not show IS performance, nor do they indicate how well the AF of the lens is on the R body. Nor do they show the personal preferences of the user. If he is talking about a general purpose walk-about lens, I can understand the claim "best lens I have ever used". Beats the heck out of a big white to carry.
> 
> That said, a more accurate claim would be "best lens/body combo I have ever carried".



yes. but up to now we have only discussed "IQ". so your first 2 points do apply (IS, AF performance) and are indeed not covered in Canon's MTF curves (calculated for optical lens design, not measured). good point!

personally i of course prefer mirrorfree R with native RF lens over EF glass.

But i do not expect noticeably better IQ in case of 24-105 in real life (even with IS and AF coming into play). Definitely none, that would justify price differential.

Things may/will change as soon as "white box" RF 24-105s will be sold at more reasonable prices. just like all the white box EF 24-105s flooded the market. for RF it may take a bit longer, since it currently is the only native RF zoom option = many R buyers will buy the kit (even more so when offered at a decent price advantage compared to separate items) and keep the lens for the time being. When the RF 2.8 zooms are available, a batch of second-hand RF 24-105s will hit the market, triggering lower prices / promotions, cash-backs etc. also for new units.

also, when RF 24-70/4 comes, it will take some market share from 24-105, especially if it is optically (even) better (as with the EF versions), has "close- up/macro" ability, is noticably smaller/lighter and less expensive. 

overall: unless you are a "compulsive GAS-ridden early adopter", don't rush (R/RF) purchase. best to wait some more & shoot with what we got. this time next year we will know a lot more.


----------



## BillB (Dec 10, 2018)

4fun said:


> yes. but up to now we have only discussed "IQ". so your first 2 points do apply (IS, AF performance) and are indeed not covered in Canon's MTF curves (calculated for optical lens design, not measured). good point!
> 
> personally i of course prefer mirrorfree R with native RF lens over EF glass.
> 
> ...


The current Canon Watch price for the EF 24-105 II is over 96% of Canon's price. Some people are willing to wait longer than others. At some point compulsive GAS-ridden early adoption becomes a reasonable choice to buy now rather than waiting for the price drop.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 10, 2018)

especially for EF lenses a bit more waiting might pay off really handsomely.


----------



## BillB (Dec 10, 2018)

4fun said:


> especially for EF lenses a bit more waiting might pay of really handsomely.


True enough. You never know how prices will play out, but standing pat is usually the low cost option. On the other hand, you can't use equipment you haven't bought, although I guess you can always rent.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 10, 2018)

BillB said:


> You never know how prices will play out



for second-hand and new EF lenses future price development is pretty much obvious.


----------



## BillB (Dec 10, 2018)

4fun said:


> for second-hand and new EF lenses future price development is pretty much obvious.


Sure. If you wait a year, you might well save money on an EF lens. How much you might save seems uncertain, at least to me. In the mean time you don't have the use of a lens that you would like to have.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 10, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> MTF curves do not show IS performance, nor do they indicate how well the AF of the lens is on the R body. Nor do they show the personal preferences of the user. If he is talking about a general purpose walk-about lens, I can understand the claim "best lens I have ever used". Beats the heck out of a big white to carry.
> 
> That said, a more accurate claim would be "best lens/body combo I have ever carried".



Yes, best lens/body combo. Have owned the original EF 24-105mm L and also the non-L 24-105mm. I would consider both of them to be "very good" lenses. I no longer have the L version, but could compare the new RF 24-105mm with the non-L 24-105mm on the "R'. The RF version was noticeably better. Also noticed the color was richer in the new RF. Don't know if color is part of the MTF chart. If not, then the MFT chart is only part of the story. And looking at the MTF charts, it should be obvious to any open minded person, that the charts show a very high quality lens.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 10, 2018)

dak723 said:


> RF. Don't know if color is part of the MTF chart. If not, then the MFT chart is only part of the story



yes, good point. "color rendition/fidelity" is not part of MTF.


----------



## AdjustedInCamera (Dec 12, 2018)

timmy_650 said:


> I love it, it feels like ever post about a new lens for the R mount. Someone complains about it not coming for the EF mount or EF mount is dead. There isn't many holes in the EF line up (expect for a 50mm f1.4). They are making new revision of EF lenses with a different white paint. I don't want 24-70 m3 with a new blacker paint. ha ha. Granted Canon could put out more lenses for the EF line up and I would be happy but I am pretty happy with there coverage from 11mm - 800mm.



Not arguing with your point, but are the RF lenses actually better? Would they work just as well on a different mount? 

Maybe they have the same error in light refraction as any other Canon lens. But with the shorter distance from lens rear element to the sensor (i.e. where the mirror would be) that error doesn't have time to spread over as much of the sensor and so results in a better image?

Maybe the real reason for ML is inherently better IQ at the same price point.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 12, 2018)

AdjustedInCamera said:


> Maybe the real reason for ML is inherently better IQ at the same price point.



for wide-angle lenses, that's my hope. yes. Better IQ *AND* smaller size *AND* lower price. Holy Trifecta.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 13, 2018)

BillB said:


> Sure. If you wait a year, you might well save money on an EF lens. How much you might save seems uncertain, at least to me. In the mean time you don't have the use of a lens that you would like to have.


Bingo. The wait and see game is silly if it prevents you from some activity you want to undertake.

I’d love for the prophoto d2s to be 50% cheaper, but in 10 years when they are I expect I’d look back and say “I wish I had a decade’s worth of high speed flash photos.”


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 13, 2018)

4fun said:


> size and price, hopefully.
> 
> RF 24-105 is far from "stellar". it is "decent". 40% higher price than EF Mk. II, but IQ, size, weight not really better. IQ is behind Sony.
> 
> Personally i'd prefer a "decent IQ", compact and well-affordable (500 €) "non-L" RF 24-*85*/4 IS STM rather than a 24-70 4 L at more than a grand. the (very good) Nikon Z 24-70/4 is about 600 in kit with Z6. will be interesting to see comparison, if/when Canon launches the lens.



The EF 24-105mm f/4L mkII was expensive, esp compared the mkI, when it came out, to the point people speculated it was released just to raise the price & Canon's profit. Difference at Amazon is 25% at the moment, $1099 compared to $875.

My guess is the RF version is here to eventually take the EF version's place - a cheap & convenient kit lens.

On the 5D I settled comfortable on the f/2.8L trio of zooms. I'll consider switching to EOS R when it has a similar trio of RF lenses.


----------

