# Here is the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM Macro



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 6, 2020)

> *Correction:* This lens is actually the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM Macro
> Canon is getting set to announce a new kit lens for the RF mount, the RF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM. This lens looks to be quite compact in length, which is because of the RF mount itself.
> We expect an official announcement very shortly.
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 6, 2020)

Thar she blows


----------



## ohm (Feb 6, 2020)

More affordable lenses like this please.


----------



## djack41 (Feb 6, 2020)

This will be a BIG seller. Perfect for travel photography.


----------



## TyWalters (Feb 6, 2020)

I'm not an RF guy (yet) but can someone explain how to manually focus this lens? Not sure if the other RF zooms work the same way but it just looks like it has a zoom ring and the control ring. AF/MF switch reads "focus/control." Do you flip the switch and focus with the control ring? Doesn't that suck if your control ring is controlling something important like ISO?


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 6, 2020)

djack41 said:


> This will be a BIG seller. Perfect for travel photography.


Agreed, provided distortions, CA, flaring, vignetting and sharpness are all within a reason.


----------



## richperson (Feb 6, 2020)

TyWalters said:


> I'm not an RF guy (yet) but can someone explain how to manually focus this lens? Not sure if the other RF zooms work the same way but it just looks like it has a zoom ring and the control ring. AF/MF switch reads "focus/control." Do you flip the switch and focus with the control ring? Doesn't that suck if your control ring is controlling something important like ISO?



not sure how I feel about that. On a lens like this I almost always would use autofocus. But,can the control ring be assigned AF? Probably not.

if the price is good enough then it might be a good choice.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 6, 2020)

TyWalters said:


> I'm not an RF guy (yet) but can someone explain how to manually focus this lens? Not sure if the other RF zooms work the same way but it just looks like it has a zoom ring and the control ring. AF/MF switch reads "focus/control." Do you flip the switch and focus with the control ring? Doesn't that suck if your control ring is controlling something important like ISO?


Well, you have at least as much control as with an EF lens/body but additionally you can configure the focus ring to do something else. Higher-end lenses have separate focus/control rings as an extra feature.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 6, 2020)

richperson said:


> not sure how I feel about that. On a lens like this I almost always would use autofocus. But,can the control ring be assigned AF? Probably not.
> 
> if the price is good enough then it might be a good choice.


It can be assigned to manual focusing - MF. Not AF, of course. Yes, manual focusing with control ring or switch to other functions with a flick of switch. Perfectly usable.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 6, 2020)

richperson said:


> But,can the control ring be assigned AF?



Look at the pics - there is a switch changing from focus to control function.

So yes, it is possible.


----------



## TyWalters (Feb 6, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> It can be assigned to manual focusing - MF. Not AF, of course. Yes, manual focusing with control ring or switch to other functions with a flick of switch. Perfectly usable.


I should be clear, I'm not starting an argument nor am I complaining. I just haven't used a control ring before. Seems to me like if I have my control ring set to something important like ISO (aperture, shutter, etc), then I don't have a way to manually focus AND adjust the setting on my ring... and that didn't seem right. Thanks for the clarification though. 

I have had a love/hate relationship with the 24-105 f4 for years. Great all-round focal range just wish it was faster!


----------



## amorse (Feb 6, 2020)

TyWalters said:


> I'm not an RF guy (yet) but can someone explain how to manually focus this lens? Not sure if the other RF zooms work the same way but it just looks like it has a zoom ring and the control ring. AF/MF switch reads "focus/control." Do you flip the switch and focus with the control ring? Doesn't that suck if your control ring is controlling something important like ISO?


The RF 24-240 has the same design - like others have said, I think you simply flip the focus/control switch to toggle between manual focus and whatever you want the control ring set to. I would bet this is one of the ways Canon is trying to reduce manufacturing costs on lower-end lenses.


----------



## amorse (Feb 6, 2020)

TyWalters said:


> I should be clear, I'm not starting an argument nor am I complaining. I just haven't used a control ring before. Seems to me like if I have my control ring set to something important like ISO (aperture, shutter, etc), then I don't have a way to manually focus AND adjust the setting on my ring... and that didn't seem right. Thanks for the clarification though.
> 
> I have had a love/hate relationship with the 24-105 f4 for years. Great all-round focal range just wish it was faster!


Yea, I agree it could be disruptive to some shooting, but in the case of using ISO and manual focus even on a lens with both a control ring and a manual focus ring, I don't think I could make adjustments to both rings with one hand at the same time in a meaningful way - I suspect I'd adjust the ISO and then manually focus. I guess for me, adding a toggle of the switch between changing those two settings would be a bit annoying, but I would bet my muscle memory would catch up quickly and it wouldn't slow me down in a meaningful way. 

It's definitely a compromise, but if it keeps the price down then it is doing buyers a favour in making RF glass more accessible!


----------



## amorse (Feb 6, 2020)

The lens looks short but pretty stocky - how big is that hand?


----------



## AEWest (Feb 6, 2020)

I am looking forward to the formal announcement of all the new gear. Maybe we will have a "one more thing..." moment?


----------



## AlP (Feb 6, 2020)

Curious to see how much it will cost, but this will for sure make the whole R system more accessible.
Looks like a quite compact lens, although the slightly angled position of the lens on the hand in the picture makes a 1:1 comparison a bit difficult:
Edit: Compared to the RF 24-105 f/4


----------



## BlancRay (Feb 6, 2020)

"Made in Taiwan". Low production costs, what about the quality ?


----------



## Rivermist (Feb 6, 2020)

amorse said:


> Yea, I agree it could be disruptive to some shooting, but in the case of using ISO and manual focus even on a lens with both a control ring and a manual focus ring, I don't think I could make adjustments to both rings with one hand at the same time in a meaningful way - I suspect I'd adjust the ISO and then manually focus. I guess for me, adding a toggle of the switch between changing those two settings would be a bit annoying, but I would bet my muscle memory would catch up quickly and it wouldn't slow me down in a meaningful way.
> 
> It's definitely a compromise, but if it keeps the price down then it is doing buyers a favour in making RF glass more accessible!


For me, the on-boarding of the whole R / RF system took (and is stil taking) more time than anticipated (I am 11 months into it and just now getting the hang of certain things). 15 years of DSLR / EF, added to 30+ years of SLR film, makes for some deeply ingrained habits regarding focus and exposure. This new control ring is one of a number of things that takes such time to really become intuitive. For a long time my first and only RF lens was the 24-105L, until December 2019 when I got a second RP bundled with the 24-240, and had to take on this new dual-purpose ring feature. As mentioned by others the most obvious use of the lens ring when it is separate is exposure correction, but starting last summer I got more and more into the Fv mode and in the end exposure control is highly manageable with that mode, actually a necessity if you are still using EF lenses (11-24, 16-35 IS and 100-400) with the standard adapter. I have not done enough shooting with the 24-240 to get much experience with the new way to use the ring alternately for manual focusing, time will tell how this all plays out in the end.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 6, 2020)

amorse said:


> The lens looks short but pretty stocky - how big is that hand?




The EF 24-105s — the f/4L USM and f/variable STM — both strangely had 77mm front filter rings (as a rough proxy for the lens outer barrel diameter). 

Smaller is surely possible. 

- A


----------



## AlP (Feb 6, 2020)

And here a similar, very rough comparison with the EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6.


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 6, 2020)

Wouldn't ya know I buy ONE RF lens--the 24-105 f/4 and it's already been superseded by TWO (three, if you can manage the monster f/2). For my assignment work I'm going to need the 24-70 f/2.8, and then THIS thing comes along as a perfect compact/lightweight travel lens...


----------



## richperson (Feb 6, 2020)

Quackator said:


> Look at the pics - there is a switch changing from focus to control function.
> 
> So yes, it is possible.



I was thinking that the switch was for the zoom ring, but you are probably right, that it switches the control ring. That seems like an very acceptable solution.


----------



## mccasi (Feb 6, 2020)

And no one has commented on the insane macro capablity? 0.5 macro (filling the FF sensor with the lens cap).
Looks to be a nifty lens. need weather resistance so i won't "downgrade", but still curious how it will look like without the digital lens corrections, think should be less compromised than the 24-240 (which is still perfectly good with DLC).


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 6, 2020)

Dont like design choice of eliminating Af/Mf switch on non L RF lenses.


----------



## Stuart (Feb 6, 2020)

I do like the Focus point being displayed in the EVF - the bar showing min focus to infinity


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 6, 2020)

TyWalters said:


> I'm not an RF guy (yet) but can someone explain how to manually focus this lens? Not sure if the other RF zooms work the same way but it just looks like it has a zoom ring and the control ring. AF/MF switch reads "focus/control." Do you flip the switch and focus with the control ring? Doesn't that suck if your control ring is controlling something important like ISO?



I am not too sure how big a problem this is.
I seldom use the manual focus now but would leave it that way.
ISO I would change even less frequently or leave it on auto ISO and be done with it.
So flipping the switch back and forth does not seem like a big deal and if others would be honest they will admit with this lens manual focus would not be used much etc.
Also if it keeps the price down even better. Want it all? Get an L lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 6, 2020)

mccasi said:


> And no one has commented on the insane macro capablity? 0.5 macro (filling the FF sensor with the lens cap).




Good eye! Macro mag not listed, but 0.2m MFD would be a dramatic upgrade over other 24-105s. The RF and EF L 24-105s have a MFD of 0.45m. 

Very good news for 24-105 fans. Possibly bad news if you love your EF 24-70 f/4L IS and its 0.7x max mag (like I do), as putting this feature into the non-L 24-105 _might_ mean an RF 24-70 f/4L may not be coming.

- A


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 6, 2020)

richperson said:


> not sure how I feel about that. On a lens like this I almost always would use autofocus. But,can the control ring be assigned AF? Probably not.
> 
> if the price is good enough then it might be a good choice.



Yes the switch toggles between manual focus and other control ring functions so you can leave it on manual focus all the time or control ring all the time, your choice.


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 6, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Dont like design choice of eliminating Af/Mf switch on non L RF lenses.



It is there.
Just called out differently.
Put on MF and you have MF.
Put on Control you have AF.
Just the same thing except on Control you get more features that the old AF/MF switch did not have.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 6, 2020)

As amazing as these newer Canon lenses have been I’m anxious to see how well it performs against the new RF L version. I have the original 24-105 L f4 EF and my understanding is That the new RF version is markedly better.


----------



## BillB (Feb 6, 2020)

amorse said:


> The lens looks short but pretty stocky - how big is that hand?


Would they be able to get away withould a retrofocal design on a 24-105 with the RF mount?


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 6, 2020)

TyWalters said:


> I have had a love/hate relationship with the 24-105 f4 for years. Great all-round focal range just wish it was faster!



Canon seems like they want to show what they can build now in RF. Look at that 28-70 f2 beast. Dear Lord. I wonder if a 24-105 f2.8 IS is possible now? Probably similar size and price to the 28-70 if they can/would do it


----------



## Famateur (Feb 6, 2020)

At first, I was a little grumbly when I saw that the control ring doubled as the manual focus ring, but then I thought more about it...

The target market for variable aperture, inexpensive, non-L lenses is beginners/novices who almost universally:


Shoot in one of the auto-exposure modes.
Rarely (if ever) use manual focus.

There's a chance that a beginner/novice might only fit one of the above, but I'll bet it's unlikely many novice photographers will regularly use both functions. This makes it a smart compromise in functions (either/or) if it keeps production costs -- and thus price -- down as much as possible.

There will undoubtedly be some enthusiasts who enjoy quality, inexpensive lenses that will miss the dedicated, separate functions, but I'd wager they're in the minority.

As an aside, I think the release of this lens in fairly close proximity to the announcement/release of the R6 points to the R6 filling the RF lineup slot that the 6D filled in the EF lineup. Will be interesting to see...


----------



## BillB (Feb 6, 2020)

BlancRay said:


> "Made in Taiwan". Low production costs, what about the quality ?


You might want to wait for the reviews on this one, or spend the money for the f4 IS if IQ is a big concern (or even the 24-70 f2.8 IS).


----------



## amorse (Feb 6, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> As amazing as these newer Canon lenses have been I’m anxious to see how well it performs against the new RF L version. I have the original 24-105 L f4 EF and my understanding is That the new RF version is markedly better.


I've been hanging on to my mk1 EF 24-105 for some time, but I don't think I've put it on my camera since picking up a 24-70 f/2.8Lii ~2 years ago. That 24-105 zoom range is so attractive to me, but I when I was comparing images between lenses I was always drawn to the 24-70 far beyond the 24-105. I had thought the RF version was pretty similar to the EF, but if it comes closer to bridging that gap I may need to make some changes... off to the digital picture!


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 6, 2020)

amorse said:


> I've been hanging on to my mk1 EF 24-105 for some time, but I don't think I've put it on my camera since picking up a 24-70 f/2.8Lii ~2 years ago. That 24-105 zoom range is so attractive to me, but I when I was comparing images between lenses I was always drawn to the 24-70 far beyond the 24-105. I had thought the RF version was pretty similar to the EF, but if it comes closer to bridging that gap I may need to make some changes... off to the digital picture!



The RF version supposedly surpasses the MkII EF by a notable margin.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 6, 2020)

Famateur said:


> Rarely (if ever) use manual focus.



I have been shooting for a bit over a decade properly, never once have I reached for MF on anything other than video. Though my main subjects are animals and Servo AF is life. I know a few novices and just getting them to try out AV and TV was scary for them, they wouldn't trust themselves over the AF of a camera.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Feb 6, 2020)

TyWalters said:


> Doesn't that suck if your control ring is controlling something important like ISO?


Yes it does. That's why you buy an L lens.


----------



## bellorusso (Feb 6, 2020)

LOL This is R5 and R6 combined. As always with Canon.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 6, 2020)

BlancRay said:


> "Made in Taiwan". Low production costs, what about the quality ?


Almost all high quality "US" mountain bike frames are made in Taiwan. If the production machinery is well installed, maintained and operated (and I'm absolutely sure it will), quality will be a non-issue.
And Taiwan is no longer a low salary country like the PRC...


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 6, 2020)

This lens has the same look and feel as the 24-240, which I find handsome but never use (the RF 70-200 and 35mm f1.8 get the work). I should probably sell. Might defer that and sell as a kit with the RP when the R5 arrives. The f4, f2, and f2.8 mid-ranges arrive this weekend from CPS for testing.

Pricing:
The 24-105 f4 L has been retailing for $899 and probably isn't selling much at $1099. Used examples aren't going for $500-600 as a glut of kit lenses has apparently been absorbed, but are now in the $700+ range. 
The 24-240 is $999 but was part of an RP kit at $1499, so was essentially a $500 lens, but open boxes sell for $700.
This one needs to be a $499 lens or lower. Maybe they list it separately as $699-799 for "value" and it lets them sell a $1299 kit with a FF RP or successor. On sale occasionally for $499.
This lens doesn't need to generate its own profits, it needs to sell mirrorless, sell full frame, and most of all sell Canon.

Performance:
The potential buyers for this don't care about uncorrected performance. Totally irrelevant. As irrelevant as worrying about the uncorrected performance of the lens in their iPhone. Similarly they likely won't use menus to change the focus/control switch. This isn't an L lens for enthusiasts whose hobbies include posting on the internet about camera lenses.

Quality:
Taiwan is fine. Nobody cares.


----------



## gruhl28 (Feb 6, 2020)

TyWalters said:


> I should be clear, I'm not starting an argument nor am I complaining. I just haven't used a control ring before. Seems to me like if I have my control ring set to something important like ISO (aperture, shutter, etc), then I don't have a way to manually focus AND adjust the setting on my ring... and that didn't seem right. Thanks for the clarification though.
> 
> I have had a love/hate relationship with the 24-105 f4 for years. Great all-round focal range just wish it was faster!


Quite interesting. Looks like the L series RF lenses have separate control and focus rings, but I see that the RF 24-240 also has just a zoom and dual focus/control ring, with a switch to switch between uses. I agree, this would make using manual focus annoying if you have the control ring mapped to an important function. I guess it's a sacrifice you make for the smaller, less expensive lenses. Really only an issue if you use manual focus much with the lens.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 6, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Dont like design choice of eliminating Af/Mf switch on non L RF lenses.



Just make a sticker that puts "AF" over the "control", and "MF" over focus. Fixed!

Are you really a consumer of entry level consumer lenses when the same zoom range is available in a similar aperture in an L lens for $700 open box? Often, enthusiasts and pros "don't like" the design shoices that are ideally made for entry-level consumers.


----------



## slclick (Feb 6, 2020)

bellorusso said:


> LOL This is R5 and R6 combined. As always with Canon.


As always, the bodies will be available individually as well. Why are more choices a negative thing?


----------



## gruhl28 (Feb 6, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> It is there.
> Just called out differently.
> Put on MF and you have MF.
> Put on Control you have AF.
> Just the same thing except on Control you get more features that the old AF/MF switch did not have.


Interesting. But I guess this means that these lenses do not have full-time manual focus override when using AF, correct? If this switch is set to Focus, does that turn off AF? Or is there a way to have autofocus enabled, and still set this to Focus to have manual override while using autofocus?


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 6, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> ... this would make using manual focus annoying if you have the control ring mapped to an important function. I guess it's a sacrifice you make for the smaller, less expensive lenses. Really only an issue if you use manual focus much with the lens.



Most entry level users don't "map" or even know what those switches do. Think like a newbie. They know it's $999 for the kit, and maybe what the zoom numbers mean (not the f numbers). "Makes me look like a pro" is more important than control switches.

And I'm not looking down on them. After all, an honest analysis would probably say I'd pay $500 more for a lens if you painted it white. Why no "white-angles"? ;-)


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 6, 2020)

amorse said:


> I've been hanging on to my mk1 EF 24-105 for some time, but I don't think I've put it on my camera since picking up a 24-70 f/2.8Lii ~2 years ago. That 24-105 zoom range is so attractive to me, but I when I was comparing images between lenses I was always drawn to the 24-70 far beyond the 24-105. I had thought the RF version was pretty similar to the EF, but if it comes closer to bridging that gap I may need to make some changes... off to the digital picture!




The 3x zoom always dunks on the 4.5x zoom. Physics is still physics last I checked.

24-105s can clearly improve, but a well designed 24-70 (of similar quality level, max aperture, materials, etc.) should outresolve it.

- A


----------



## gruhl28 (Feb 6, 2020)

Famateur said:


> At first, I was a little grumbly when I saw that the control ring doubled as the manual focus ring, but then I thought more about it...
> 
> The target market for variable aperture, inexpensive, non-L lenses is beginners/novices who almost universally:
> 
> ...


How many beginners/novices are buying full-frame? I would think not many. But not everyone, even experienced photographers, can afford or be willing to spend the money on L lenses, most don't need the bullet-proof construction, don't need perfect IQ, may not want the size and weight, etc. I would think that most people buying full-frame cameras and lenses are not beginners, but may still be willing to trade a dedicated focus ring for the reduction in price, size, and weight.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 6, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> Interesting. But I guess this means that these lenses do not have full-time manual focus override when using AF, correct? If this switch is set to Focus, does that turn off AF? Or is there a way to have autofocus enabled, and still set this to Focus to have manual override while using autofocus?



Based on the 24-240: Press shutter release halfway and it will auto focus and it's manual focus. (Unless you're in servo mode in which case it stays auto-focusing.) True MF can be set in the menus. Amusingly, if MF is selected in the menus, and the switch is to control, there is no way to focus the lens.


----------



## djkraq (Feb 6, 2020)

I rarely use manual focus with budget lenses. Not a concern for me


----------



## tron (Feb 6, 2020)

Of course it will have no Full Time Manual just like RF24-105 4L does not. This does not seem very important but having used the EOS R for some time I have encountered cases where if I have shot something very close like a flower then it does respond (it stays there!). I have to either turn the camera off and on a few times or put the switch to manual, move the ring to something close to the distance I want to focus and change it back to AF.

This is not 100% new for Canon but with DSLR it had happened to me only when both were true:
1. I had opted for no AF attempt if not in focus which is a typical selection for bird/sport shooting and
to tell the truth I set it on EOS R for these rare cases I will need AI Servo.
2. There was not contrast to allow focusing (like all black, all white, same color).
Camera didnt't wake when recomposing (as I said very very few times) but using a FTM lens I moved a little the focusing ring and everyhing went back to normal. 

But allow me to repeat. Wit EOS R and 24-105L this happened when focusing close to MFD and then trying to focus at a distance.

In DSLR case this has happened to me only with the 500mm and VERY rarely and only if the two above mentioned cases happened at the same time. 

But fixing it in case of RF24-105 isn't that quick and it annoys me. There will be no issues I guess with the other lenses I remember using one of the two at least using FTM when taking tests shots in my living room.
I played with not because I found a problem but to set camera to respond to it by magnifying the EVF image (very interesting feature by the way!)


----------



## CovetedPixel (Feb 6, 2020)

TyWalters said:


> I'm not an RF guy (yet) but can someone explain how to manually focus this lens? Not sure if the other RF zooms work the same way but it just looks like it has a zoom ring and the control ring. AF/MF switch reads "focus/control." Do you flip the switch and focus with the control ring? Doesn't that suck if your control ring is controlling something important like ISO?


If you put the switch on focus, then the ring controls focus, if the ring is on control, then it acts like a control ring (adjusting whatever you have set up for that function) With that switch set to "focus" if your camera body is set to AF and you have your body configured for AF+MF, then you can make focus adjustments after AF, if your camera body is set to MF, then that is simply a focus by wire ring. Maybe in future firmware, there will be an option that when that lens switch is switched to "focus" it puts the camera body in MF mode, or AF+MF, your choice.


----------



## BillB (Feb 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> The 3x zoom always dunks on the 4.5x zoom. Physics is still physics last I checked.
> 
> 24-105s can clearly improve, but a well designed 24-70 (of similar quality level, max aperture, materials, etc.) should outresolve it.
> 
> - A



From Roger Cicala's post on the Sigma 24-105

I generally let you know what my expectations are before I start, to hopefully let you know where my personal opinion affects things. The fact that I’m just posting tests of the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM Art months after the lens was released tells you a lot. I’m not excited about testing 24-105mm lenses; it’s almost always ‘another one like the other ones.’

Don’t get me wrong; these are useful and popular zooms for a reason. I’ve owned several and used them a lot. The focal length makes them superb general purpose and walk-about lenses. But designing a zoom that goes from retrofocus to telephoto is a daunting task. My conclusion for almost every one of them has been “decent from 24mm to 70mm and usable past that if you need to.” I didn’t expect anything different from this lens, Art or not.


----------



## AEWest (Feb 6, 2020)

amorse said:


> The RF 24-240 has the same design - like others have said, I think you simply flip the focus/control switch to toggle between manual focus and whatever you want the control ring set to. I would bet this is one of the ways Canon is trying to reduce manufacturing costs on lower-end lenses.





djkraq said:


> I rarely use manual focus with budget lenses. Not a concern for me


For panoramas on a tripod I make sure to switch on MF on the lens.


----------



## JustUs7 (Feb 6, 2020)

Didn’t read the whole thread. Most of it. As a novice, given the choice between this and the 24-240 as a kit, I’d take the latter. Overall, this may be the better lens, but I value the reach more in the all in one. And I have the 35mm f1.8 as well, so the 3.5 isn’t worth the loss of reach.
As far as the focus/control switch. I think it’s fine. I mapped our control ring to ISO and reaching for a switch takes getting used to just like reaching for a 3rd ring does. 
It is interesting how important something became that didn’t exist prior to the RF mount.
I’m more looking forward to a non “L” 50 and/or 85. F1.8 - f2 is a more than adequate aperture for my needs. I just want to take decent headshots of my kids to hang on the walls. Not trying to make a living. The 35 is okay, but a bit wide. The 24-240 gives me the reach, but I’m already at f5 at 50 mm and f5.6 at 70mm.


----------



## degos (Feb 6, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> The potential buyers for this don't care about uncorrected performance. Totally irrelevant. As irrelevant as worrying about the uncorrected performance of the lens in their iPhone.



People who spend $1500 on a full-frame and lens kit are a lot more clued-in than you seem to think
They might only shoot JPEGs but they'll primarily be in Av and Tv modes.


----------



## Dantana (Feb 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> The 3x zoom always dunks on the 4.5x zoom. Physics is still physics last I checked.
> 
> 24-105s can clearly improve, but a well designed 24-70 (of similar quality level, max aperture, materials, etc.) should outresolve it.
> 
> - A


True, but the 24-105 will always beat the 24-70 at 105.


----------



## Famateur (Feb 6, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> How many beginners/novices are buying full-frame?



All the same ones that bought the very successful 6D.

It wouldn't surprise me if the R6* and this lens (or other kit lens) show up in Costco all over the US, to be snapped up by people who want a "pro" (looks like, to them, anyway) full-frame camera at a no-brainer kit price (think of the mostly-affluent Costco members). When the price of a full-frame camera isn't a huge leap from the cost of their latest iPhone, it seems more plausible, doesn't it?

_*That is, if the R6 fills the RF equivalent slot as the 6D, as I suspect...but could be totally wrong._


----------



## Adelino (Feb 6, 2020)

AEWest said:


> I am looking forward to the formal announcement of all the new gear. Maybe we will have a "one more thing..." moment?


I hate that phrase, when we did some "minor" changes to our current home before moving in, every time my wife said "one more thing" it cost between 3 and 10 thousand dollars. 35K later on top of the down payment we moved in. 
But this time it could be good


----------



## trulandphoto (Feb 6, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> Quite interesting. Looks like the L series RF lenses have separate control and focus rings, but I see that the RF 24-240 also has just a zoom and dual focus/control ring, with a switch to switch between uses. I agree, this would make using manual focus annoying if you have the control ring mapped to an important function. I guess it's a sacrifice you make for the smaller, less expensive lenses. Really only an issue if you use manual focus much with the lens.



And no issue at all if you remove the focus start function from the shutter button like I do. It's always easy to manual focus by not using the af-on button and half pressing the shutter button.


----------



## slclick (Feb 6, 2020)

BillB said:


> From Roger Cicala's post on the Sigma 24-105
> 
> I generally let you know what my expectations are before I start, to hopefully let you know where my personal opinion affects things. The fact that I’m just posting tests of the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM Art months after the lens was released tells you a lot. I’m not excited about testing 24-105mm lenses; it’s almost always ‘another one like the other ones.’
> 
> Don’t get me wrong; these are useful and popular zooms for a reason. I’ve owned several and used them a lot. The focal length makes them superb general purpose and walk-about lenses. But designing a zoom that goes from retrofocus to telephoto is a daunting task. My conclusion for almost every one of them has been “decent from 24mm to 70mm and usable past that if you need to.” I didn’t expect anything different from this lens, Art or not.


fwiw, my copy (sold) of the Siggy was much better (not marginally) than my previous 2 copies (also sold) of the Canon OG. Now, my current 24-105 is the Mk 2 EF and it is better than all of them. I know the reviews all say it's a very minor upgrade but it's a case of copy variance and YMMV as well. I love mine. I would never be deluded to think it would replace a proper wide angle prime or a short tele like the 100L. Please.....


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 6, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Just make a sticker that puts "AF" over the "control", and "MF" over focus. Fixed!
> 
> Are you really a consumer of entry level consumer lenses when the same zoom range is available in a similar aperture in an L lens for $700 open box? Often, enthusiasts and pros "don't like" the design shoices that are ideally made for entry-level consumers.


*en·thu·si·ast
/inˈTHo͞ozēˌast/*
noun

1.a person who is very interested in a particular activity or subject:"a sports car *enthusiast*"
"L" lenses just means somebody willing to spend a lot of money and/or with very high standards or taste. There can be enthusiasts at any level, including entry level. I think it is a little bit elitist to frame it otherwise. There are plenty of enthusiasts that cannot buy "L" lenses. There are also plenty who only buy used.


----------



## Dexter75 (Feb 6, 2020)

Price? Now we just need some affordable primes...


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 6, 2020)

degos said:


> People who spend $1500 on a full-frame and lens kit are a lot more clued-in than you seem to think
> They might only shoot JPEGs but they'll primarily be in Av and Tv modes.



Since we're both guessing out of total ignorance (which is what makes this fun) I'll assume that the professionals with actual market data are making these calls more wisely that you or I could. 

My guess is that the green auto mode is the most popular for the entry level, and amateurs are less clued in than you might think.

I also guess that we may see sub $1000 FF kits before long. This lens on an RP successor might initially retail for $1299, but be $999 on black Friday. Could be a $749 body and $249 lens. Costco and Sams club kit box. 10% of those loss leader new customers buy a profitable lens in the next year.

I presume that like everything digital, the full frame sensors have come down in price, and the crop frame exists mostly to offer a lower cost segment. FF sensors might well serve that profitably by now.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 6, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> *en·thu·si·ast
> /inˈTHo͞ozēˌast/*
> noun
> 
> ...



I agree with all that. I intended to distinguish between the more knowledgeable buyers who tend buy the more expensive lenses and the entry level. Not everyone who can't afford an expensive equipment is unsophisticated, of course.

What will be interesting is that we have two virtually identical spec lenses for the same mount released at almost the same time. One L, one not. What will be the price premium for the L benefits?


----------



## BillB (Feb 6, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> Price? Now we just need some affordable primes...


For affordable camera sales, an affordable 24-105 is going to mean more than any number of affordable primes. Primes don't move that part of the market, and may not move any part of the market.


----------



## gruhl28 (Feb 6, 2020)

Famateur said:


> All the same ones that bought the very successful 6D.
> 
> It wouldn't surprise me if the R6* and this lens (or other kit lens) show up in Costco all over the US, to be snapped up by people who want a "pro" (looks like, to them, anyway) full-frame camera at a no-brainer kit price (think of the mostly-affluent Costco members). When the price of a full-frame camera isn't a huge leap from the cost of their latest iPhone, it seems more plausible, doesn't it?
> 
> _*That is, if the R6 fills the RF equivalent slot as the 6D, as I suspect...but could be totally wrong._


I wonder how many novices bought the 6D. I don't have any data, but I would think most 6D's were bought by people moving up from APS-C who understand the benefits of FF and aren't novices. Or maybe even people who were waiting for an affordable full-frame camera to replace a film SLR. Or who had outgrown a compact camera. I've been doing photography for 40 years, never shoot in Program mode, can't begin to count how many books I've read, how many hours reading web sites, etc., definitely not a novice, but I'm still on APS-C, because I still can't justify the expense of moving to full-frame. I can afford it, but a 6D, R, RP are slower than an 80D, 6D has less focus-point coverage, 6D2 isn't much of an improvement over 80D in noise, etc. And then there's the weight and size issue.


----------



## Jethro (Feb 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Good eye! Macro mag not listed, but 0.2m MFD would be a dramatic upgrade over other 24-105s. The RF and EF L 24-105s have a MFD of 0.45m.
> 
> Very good news for 24-105 fans. *Possibly bad news if you love your EF 24-70 f/4L IS and its 0.7x max mag *(like I do), as putting this feature into the non-L 24-105 _might_ mean an RF 24-70 f/4L may not be coming.
> 
> - A


I'm one of those guys - but frankly an affordable and (fingers crossed) good quality 24-105 still sounds like a great compromise to me!


----------



## Ale_F (Feb 6, 2020)

My 2c.
Actually I largely use the EF 24-105 on both cameras.
For travelling I prefered the old and light 24-85 that I used before 24-105. For all other use, the L is better.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 6, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> Price? Now we just need some affordable primes...




And an affordable f/4ish UWA zoom.

- A


----------



## Kit. (Feb 6, 2020)

Dantana said:


> True, but the 24-105 will always beat the 24-70 at 105.


Well, physics is physics, but marketing is marketing. So... not necessarily.

24-70 is supposed to beat 28-70 at 24, though. Or so I hope.


----------



## BillB (Feb 6, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> And an affordable f/4ish UWA zoom.
> 
> - A


This is where the word affordable may require some parsing. Compared to f2.8 zooms, f4 zooms seem sort of affordable at $1000 apiece, give or take, and Canon has the EF 16-35 f4L in that range, so a similar RF lens seems possible. All the FF zooms I can think of for significantly under $1000 initial selling price are variable aperture, except for the non IS EF 70-200L and the non IS EF 17-40L and both have been around for a while. Other than the 17-40, I can't think of any FF UWA less expensive than the EF 16-35 f4 IS. I traded my 17-40 in for a 16-35 f4 and have never regretted it. I doubt there will be an RF comparable to the 17-40. There might be an RF UWA variable aperture with IS but I can't remember any precedent for one.

So an affordableish f4ish RF zoom seems possible.


----------



## David the street guy (Feb 6, 2020)

TyWalters said:


> I'm not an RF guy (yet) but can someone explain how to manually focus this lens? Not sure if the other RF zooms work the same way but it just looks like it has a zoom ring and the control ring. AF/MF switch reads "focus/control." Do you flip the switch and focus with the control ring? Doesn't that suck if your control ring is controlling something important like ISO?


At first, I also was intrigued by this configuration, but then I thought of the way I often use manual focus: iso is set, aperture is set, speed is set, but I'm having trouble focusing for any number of reasons. At that moment, I'll switch to manual focus and take the shot without having to change anything else.


----------



## dsut4392 (Feb 6, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I agree with all that. I intended to distinguish between the more knowledgeable buyers who tend buy the more expensive lenses and the entry level. Not everyone who can't afford an expensive equipment is unsophisticated, of course.
> 
> What will be interesting is that we have two virtually identical spec lenses for the same mount released at almost the same time. One L, one not. What will be the price premium for the L benefits?


There's also a significant market of people who can easily afford the more expensive lenses, but buy the 'entry level' ones because they are small and light. I could buy all of the exotic new RF L lenses tomorrow and not notice the difference in my bank account, but my back would feel it when I'm hiking, and international travel with hand-luggage only would be completely impossible. I've picked up an RP and 24-240 as a compact travel kit to dip my toes in the water and am hoping at some point a 50/1.4 comes along that has good rendering and is no bigger than the old 50/1.4 USM. If some RF lenses come along that equal the EF 16-35/4 and 70-300L in optical performance but are noticeably more compact or lighter I'll probably pick those up, but I have no use for anything bigger than my existing lenses.


----------



## Aregal (Feb 7, 2020)

You got it right. That’s how Canon will create the impetus to invest in L-series RF lenses.



TyWalters said:


> I'm not an RF guy (yet) but can someone explain how to manually focus this lens? Not sure if the other RF zooms work the same way but it just looks like it has a zoom ring and the control ring. AF/MF switch reads "focus/control." Do you flip the switch and focus with the control ring? Doesn't that suck if your control ring is controlling something important like ISO?


----------



## JustUs7 (Feb 7, 2020)

TyWalters said:


> I'm not an RF guy (yet) but can someone explain how to manually focus this lens? Not sure if the other RF zooms work the same way but it just looks like it has a zoom ring and the control ring. AF/MF switch reads "focus/control." Do you flip the switch and focus with the control ring? Doesn't that suck if your control ring is controlling something important like ISO?



The other thing worth pointing out. Just because the control ring is set to ISO, doesn’t mean that’s the only way to set ISO. The RP still has the M-Fn button next to the shutter that allows you to change what the dials control on the fly. And it can all be seen within the EVF.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 7, 2020)

Starting off with RP + RF24-105mm f3.5-5.6 kit makes a compelling combination for novices stepping up. From green mode to the exposure triangle (Av/Tv) and maybe eventually trying manual focus over time for long exposure/night shots.

My story as someone who started as a novice (didn't we all!) and be a prosumer now... 
200x Ixus then S90/95/100 
2014 New 7D + EF24-105 f/4L and a second hand EF-S 10-22 later. *Went with Canon as the Ixus/S series were Canon*.
2016 New 5Diii and 16-35mm f4L after an insurance claim and second hand 70-200mm/100mm/8-15mm later
2019 Second hand 5Div was a bigger improvement than I thought it would be. 

Stepping up to a new RF is close to a system change. The rumoured R5 specs + RF70-200mm will be painfully expensive (~USD7k) - especially upgrading to a new Ikelite underwater housing (+USD2k)! Keeping the EF16-35mm/8-15mm + CP adapter is a killer combination. My wife is pushing for a smaller system when travelling and it would exceed my skills/requirements for a loooong time to come. The RF100-500mm would be tempting though.

Not sure that I will keep my EF24-105mm though. Great all rounder but I am getting used to keeping the 16-35mm on the body and taking the 70-200 in the bag if needed. I have big hands and the ergonomics of the 5D is perfect (or perhaps R5+grip?) and the weight is no problem for me.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 7, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> The other thing worth pointing out. Just because the control ring is set to ISO, doesn’t mean that’s the only way to set ISO. The RP still has the M-Fn button next to the shutter that allows you to change what the dials control on the fly. And it can all be seen within the EVF.


and I believe the R can change the ISO using the touch bar


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 7, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> and I believe the R can change the ISO using the touch bar


It can, but it is not any fun that way. The touch bar is much better suited for on/off features like the histogram, level, or magnification.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 7, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Looking good and strong Canon - along with those two rumored 2 FF RF cameras should take it to Sony and have a royale Battle. Hopefully Nikon can join the battle as well.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 7, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Good eye! Macro mag not listed, but 0.2m MFD would be a dramatic upgrade over other 24-105s. The RF and EF L 24-105s have a MFD of 0.45m.
> 
> Very good news for 24-105 fans. Possibly bad news if you love your EF 24-70 f/4L IS and its 0.7x max mag (like I do), as putting this feature into the non-L 24-105 _might_ mean an RF 24-70 f/4L may not be coming.
> 
> - A



So entry level buyers even know what macro
means?


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 7, 2020)

dsut4392 said:


> There's also a significant market of people who can easily afford the more expensive lenses, but buy the 'entry level' ones because they are small and light. I could buy all of the exotic new RF L lenses tomorrow and not notice the difference in my bank account, but my back would feel it when I'm hiking, and international travel with hand-luggage only would be completely impossible. I've picked up an RP and 24-240 as a compact travel kit to dip my toes in the water and am hoping at some point a 50/1.4 comes along that has good rendering and is no bigger than the old 50/1.4 USM. If some RF lenses come along that equal the EF 16-35/4 and 70-300L in optical performance but are noticeably more compact or lighter I'll probably pick those up, but I have no use for anything bigger than my existing lenses.



I totally agree. I may keep the RP after getting an R5 just for lightweight day to day shooting, always on the kitchen counter to grab with a light RF 35mm. 

Still waiting to love the 24-240.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 7, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I totally agree. I may keep the RP after getting an R5 just for lightweight day to day shooting, always on the kitchen counter to grab with a light RF 35mm.
> 
> Still waiting to love the 24-240.


That 24-240 love won’t come. However this one here is mighty tempting.









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






Much smaller and lighter than 24-105/4 and is a perfect travel companion to your RP.


----------



## Adelino (Feb 7, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> So entry level buyers even know what macro
> means?


They are entry level ILC buyers not entry level phone buyers. So yes, well most.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 7, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Just make a sticker that puts "AF" over the "control", and "MF" over focus. Fixed!
> 
> Are you really a consumer of entry level consumer lenses when the same zoom range is available in a similar aperture in an L lens for $700 open box? Often, enthusiasts and pros "don't like" the design shoices that are ideally made for entry-level consumers.





Its a stupid complicated simplification of system that didn't need fixing.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 7, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> View attachment 188565
> 
> Its a stupid complicated simplification of system that didn't need fixing.


Actually it makes a better sense in RF world where you can have a Control option not just AF/MF. In EF world this wouldn’t be needed though


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 7, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Actually it makes a better sense in RF world where you can have a Control option not just AF/MF. In EF world this wouldn’t be needed though


Still users need to dive into menu system to set options for that switch and as some one pointed out its apparently for better usability of beginers. Dont see how beginers who rarely change default settings or dive into manuals are going wrap their heads around this.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 7, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Still users need to dive into menu system to set options for that switch and as some one pointed out its apparently for better usability of beginers. Dont see how beginers who rarely change default settings or dive into manuals are going wrap their heads around this.


Yeah, lest we forget that Canon is now engaging themselves in a specs sheet wars with S. 
They are going to smash it at the R5 R6 features announcement. Bloggers are going to have a feast from that very moment and for months to come.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 7, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Still users need to dive into menu system to set options for that switch and as some one pointed out its apparently for better usability of beginers. Dont see how beginers who rarely change default settings or dive into manuals are going wrap their heads around this.


Beginners just won't use that ring.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 7, 2020)

I was hoping this was a nanoUSM like the EF-S 18-135 USM. Would combine the smoothness of STM focusing for videos with the AF speed of ring USM for action.


----------



## lawny13 (Feb 7, 2020)

I am also curious about the focus/control switch and if it uses the control ring. 

But my curiosity is more about the fact that the control rings I have used so far click and aren't decidable. Think it would be annoying and not exactly precise to have a clickable focus ring.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 7, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> I am also curious about the focus/control switch and if it uses the control ring.
> 
> But my curiosity is more about the fact that the control rings I have used so far click and aren't decidable. Think it would be annoying and not exactly precise to have a clickable focus ring.



The RF24-240 uses the same system, so you could give that a try in a shop that has it in stock.


----------



## lawny13 (Feb 7, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> The RF24-240 uses the same system, so you could give that a try in a shop that has it in stock.




Well I am just curious. Not curious enough to go and test it since I will likely never own this lens nor the 24-240, so I can wait to read from someone with some experience with it. I currently have the RF24-105 L f4 (so no stm for me), and will buy the RF 70-200 f2.8 sooner or later. If I didn't have the 24-105 f4, then maybe one of the other two would be in consideration.


----------



## trulandphoto (Feb 7, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> The other thing worth pointing out. Just because the control ring is set to ISO, doesn’t mean that’s the only way to set ISO. The RP still has the M-Fn button next to the shutter that allows you to change what the dials control on the fly. And it can all be seen within the EVF.



For reprogramming buttons on the RP, I've chosen depth of field preview for the multi function button, centering the focus point for the movie button and ISO with turning the wheel for the * button. AE lock when holding the shutter half way takes care of that function.


----------



## whoknows (Feb 7, 2020)

This lens is actually going to be f/7.1 at the long end. So, guys, get prepared for a...


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 7, 2020)

whoknows said:


> This lens is actually going to be f/7.1 at the long end. So, guys, get prepared for a...


where is that bit of information coming from? remind me of a single Canon zoom lens released with less than F6.3 at the long end in last 30 years?


----------



## JustUs7 (Feb 7, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Still users need to dive into menu system to set options for that switch and as some one pointed out its apparently for better usability of beginers. Dont see how beginers who rarely change default settings or dive into manuals are going wrap their heads around this.



As a beginner, that ring is what made me want to understand ISO better and when to adjust it. Now I actually use it. The EVF lets me see exactly what’s changing, which is great as a beginner. Prior to the new year, when we purchased the RP system, I never took the ISO off Auto on my old Rebel.

Beginners who buy this system may be rather novice, but they are people who want to learn more and improve their photography. 

What I don’t do a lot of is manual focus. I’ve tried, but with the new touch drag auto focus, I don’t trust my eyes as much as this cameras. I used it more on the Rebel if there were foreground objects with my subject standing back. Now I just move my focus point to my subjects face, back button focus, and shoot. My miss rate has gone way down.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 7, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> where is that bit of information coming from? remind me of a single Canon zoom lens released with less than F6.3 at the long end in last 30 years?



Ehm, the RF24-105 F/4 L?

Edit: with 'less than' do you mean 'narrower' or 'numerically less'?


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 7, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> Interesting. But I guess this means that these lenses do not have full-time manual focus override when using AF, correct? If this switch is set to Focus, does that turn off AF? Or is there a way to have autofocus enabled, and still set this to Focus to have manual override while using autofocus?



Ask canon, I have never seen or used the lens. Just looked at the switches. Who knows, the control ring can be anything the camera wants it to be and that might be a menu item in the camera.
Thus the brilliance of the Canon RF system and flexibility through software vs hardware.
And if that option is not there then Canon obviously does what CR readers say so they will add that option.


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 7, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> That 24-240 love won’t come. However this one here is mighty tempting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...











RF24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM


Compact, Lightweight 10x Zoom RF Lens High Image Quality and Bright f/4-6.3 Lens Aperture Optical Image Stabilization with up to 5 Stops* of Shake Correction High Speed, Smooth and Quiet Auto Focus with Nano USM First Canon Lens with Dynamic IS for Full-frame Cameras** Minimum Focusing Distance...




www.usa.canon.com


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 7, 2020)

Adelino said:


> They are entry level ILC buyers not entry level phone buyers. So yes, well most.



Good point. I forget that as the camera market has crashed, the 80% of customers who stopped buying cameras are the low-information ones.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 7, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Ehm, the RF24-105 F/4 L?
> 
> Edit: with 'less than' do you mean 'narrower' or 'numerically less'?



From context I think it's pretty clear what was meant, unless you're being deliberately obtuse.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 7, 2020)

FamilyGuy said:


> As a beginner, that ring is what made me want to understand ISO better and when to adjust it. Now I actually use it. The EVF lets me see exactly what’s changing, which is great as a beginner. Prior to the new year, when we purchased the RP system, I never took the ISO off Auto on my old Rebel.
> 
> Beginners who buy this system may be rather novice, but they are people who want to learn more and improve their photography.
> 
> What I don’t do a lot of is manual focus. I’ve tried, but with the new touch drag auto focus, I don’t trust my eyes as much as this cameras. I used it more on the Rebel if there were foreground objects with my subject standing back. Now I just move my focus point to my subjects face, back button focus, and shoot. My miss rate has gone way down.



Good post. I like the setting when you press the shutter halfway it lets you manually focus. With focus peaking that is amazing


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 7, 2020)

scyrene said:


> From context I think it's pretty clear what was meant, unless you're being deliberately obtuse.



After my afternoon coffee kicked in it was a lot clearer. So I wasn't _deliberately_ obtuse, just accidentally


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 7, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Ehm, the RF24-105 F/4 L?
> 
> Edit: with 'less than' do you mean 'narrower' or 'numerically less'?


 narrower than F6.3, of course


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 7, 2020)

lawny13 said:


> I am also curious about the focus/control switch and if it uses the control ring.
> 
> But my curiosity is more about the fact that the control rings I have used so far click and aren't decidable. Think it would be annoying and not exactly precise to have a clickable focus ring.



The 24-240 control ring does not have clicks. This presumably won't either. I presume the rule for two-ring zoom lenses one of course must zoom, and the other is a potential focus ring. Only for three-ring zooms or two ring primes (like the RF 35) is the second ring clicky.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 7, 2020)

amorse said:


> The lens looks short but pretty stocky - how big is that hand?



The rear satin titanium looking portion being constant across all lenses, comparing the RF35 (72mm diameter forward of the rear taper) and the 24-240 (80mm at that point) this is larger than but closer to the RF35. Guess 75mm. Larger where it steps out a hair at the front of the zoom ring.


----------



## Famateur (Feb 7, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> I wonder how many novices bought the 6D. I don't have any data, but I would think most 6D's were bought by people moving up from APS-C who understand the benefits of FF and aren't novices. Or maybe even people who were waiting for an affordable full-frame camera to replace a film SLR. Or who had outgrown a compact camera. I've been doing photography for 40 years, never shoot in Program mode, can't begin to count how many books I've read, how many hours reading web sites, etc., definitely not a novice, but I'm still on APS-C, because I still can't justify the expense of moving to full-frame. I can afford it, but a 6D, R, RP are slower than an 80D, 6D has less focus-point coverage, 6D2 isn't much of an improvement over 80D in noise, etc. And then there's the weight and size issue.



All valid points!


----------



## slclick (Feb 7, 2020)

My experience locally is quite a few 50/60D shooters went to the 6D primarily because it was so much less expensive than the 5D3 and much more similar in form factor to the XXD series. Lots of happy photographers iirc. IRL there wasn't the whining about the 6D 1&2 like you see on forums and YouTube.


----------



## amorse (Feb 7, 2020)

slclick said:


> My experience locally is quite a few 50/60D shooters went to the 6D primarily because it was so much less expensive than the 5D3 and much more similar in form factor to the XXD series. Lots of happy photographers iirc. IRL there wasn't the whining about the 6D 1&2 like you see on forums and YouTube.


I loved my 6D when I had it. It did its job just fine for my uses. The big thing though is picking up a 6D eventually becomes the temptation to move up to a 5D series, and I was most certainly captured by that!


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 8, 2020)

amorse said:


> I loved my 6D when I had it. It did its job just fine for my uses. The big thing though is picking up a 6D eventually becomes the temptation to move up to a 5D series, and I was most certainly captured by that!


That’s the primary purpose of a bridging FF camera body being a relatively inexpensive step up option for aps-c users looking for something more than a crop body has to offer. I used 6D as a second camera for almost 2 years. It has its limitations, sure. but is a very capable tool nevertheless.


----------



## Yaba (Feb 10, 2020)

Yet another lens with a Focus/Control switch :-(

Looks like the separate control ring will be exclusive to the L lenses.I do not like this


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 10, 2020)

OH SNAP IT'S f/7.1 ON THE LONG END -- will be _tiny_

~ 20mm shorter and 300g lighter than the RF 24-105L


​​- A


----------



## Kit. (Feb 13, 2020)

I wonder if EOS RP focus stacking will work with this lens.


----------

