The Canon RF 24-105mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z is here. It is quite possibly one of the most impressive lenses ever seen, being the first full frame lens to ever offer an f/2.8 constant aperture in tandem with a 24-105mm focal length range. Can it offer the sort of performance and image quality needed to back up those impressive specs? This great video takes a first look at what you can expect.
Coming to you from Park Cameras, this excellent video takes a first look at the new Canon RF 24-105mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z lens. Along with those marquee specs, the 24-105mm f/2.8 comes with a nice range of features, including:
- Constant length while zooming
- Manual aperture ring for video work
- Minimum Focusing Distance: 1.48 ft (0.45 m)
- Maximum Magnification: .08x at 24mm, .29x at 105mm
- 23 elements in 18 groups
- 4 UD elements, 3 aspherical elements
- Super Spectra Coating, Air Sphere Coating, and Fluorine coatings
- 11 aperture blades
- 5.5 stops of image stabilization (up to 8 stops in tandem with in-body stabilization)
- Two Nano USM focus motors
- Full-time manual focusing capabilities
Altogether, the RF 24-105mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z looks mightily impressive. Check out the video above for the full rundown.
You have to wonder if Tamron considered a 24-105mm f/2.8 and went with a 35-150mm f/2-2.8 instead, favoring extra reach and a larger aperture on the wide end.
This lens looks fantastic in nearly every respect though I would love to see a comparison between the two in terms of IQ, distortion, etc. especially given the price difference ($1k). The WA differences are not all that much for general landscape, though it might make a difference for some indoor as well as some landscape applications. Also, the Tammy is a bayonetting lens.
Ah true, the internal zoom is a nice to have for sure. I suspect most landscape photogs would need a 16-35 accompaniment in either case. Imo the 24-105 is a more versatile single lens for most event photographers, but if you can live with 35 at the widest end, the extra stop of light is nice to have.
The size and weight will prevent many still photographers from considering this lens.
The focal length range and maximum aperture will attract many as well.
Especially if they have shooting situations in which they can go with a single body & lens instead of a 24-70 on one body and a longer lens on a second body, or constantly swapping a second longer lens back and forth on the same body..
Perhaps the ultimate walk around lens? ;-)
Maybe, but it's a bit long for that role.
I think the chief use case for this lens is for event photographers, who can go from two bodies with a "short" and "long" lens to a single body, with the backup body left close by in the bag.
It's actually lighter than the 28-70mm f/2 which I use to shoot theatre. With the added versatility of its zoom range I am seriously considering it as a handheld lens for stills photography.
I don't get it. So how will a 24-105 2.8 keep all of those still photographers who are currently walking around with a 70-200 from getting this lens? It's still lighter than a 100-500, or a 28-70 or a 70-200 or a 600mm. Those weights don't keep them from buying those lenses.
the RF 70-200 2.8 is nearly 500gr lighter than the 24-105 2.8!