The L is so good. Got mine for $899. Got my RP for $850. The combo fits in my jacket pocket
Looks like they will use the stm in rp kits for under $1500
for me though the L is worth $899
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canon RF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Incoming
- Thread starter Mr_Win
- Start date
Looks like they will use the stm in rp kits for under $1500
for me though the L is worth $899
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,656
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,952
my guess is $400 when bought in the kit, $599 when bought separateIf the new lens is very good stopped down a bit (say f/8.0) and it is only $400 it is a nice option for some purposes. In my opinion the RP needs a lens like that. I understand you have different needs.
will you sell your 15-85?
my guess is $599 by itself, $399 as a kitFolks like myself, want the R system to be more portable. RF 24-105 f/4L although more portable than the 5D + 24-105 options before it, this lens is clearly geared towards more compromise (non-constant f-stop) to make it smaller and lighter, but, it also addresses cheaper to your point which Canon could've achieved with pricing alone.
I think the RP + this guy, or even the R, should be pretty small. Enough to grab some of the M users like myself potentially.
It's a gateway drug for FF if you will, much like the RF 35 is. Cheaper and smaller/lighter.
I hope they make it super cheap
Guessing $499 by itself, cheaper combo'd with an RP.
so are you going to downsize and get the RP + the stm
sell the 28-70 f2 and the R?
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,656
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,952
That is a tough question. Actually i want the RF 24-70 f/2.8 IS USM, and even that one isn't the first priority. So it might take me some time to get the 15-85mm phased out.my guess is $400 when bought in the kit, $599 when bought separateIf the new lens is very good stopped down a bit (say f/8.0) and it is only $400 it is a nice option for some purposes. In my opinion the RP needs a lens like that. I understand you have different needs.
will you sell your 15-85?
For now i can make combinations in a dual camera setup:
M50+18-35 & R + 24mm (for the wider end) or 50mm (thinner dof) or 100mm (as a portrait telephoto lens)
M50+50-100 & R+ 35mm or 50mm
Probably the 15-85 has a lot less work to do because of these possibilities.
My first priority is a portrait telephoto lens for the R (a better one than the 100mm macro).
Well, a 24-70 would have been even shorter. An M series camera with a kit lens is even smaller. Then there is the phone. You get the idea.it's an inch shorter, and if you're running around with small bags like the Peak Sling 3L, every inch matters. It's likely 150-200g lighter than the 24-105L, and in the world of mirrorless, that's a possible future lens right there, samyang is already making RF glass, and their 18mm (sony mount) is only 150g give or take. It's only a matter of time when that becomes a real option.But this lens does not look more portable.
Yeah, another questionable lens. It was supposed to be a poster child for the new shiny mount.
It is like selling an F150 truck with a 4 cylinder engine, just to reduce the cost a bit.I hope they make it super cheap
Guessing $499 by itself, cheaper combo'd with an RP.
Exactly the opposite. I haven't been excited so much about a lens since I bought my 35LII. I paid less for it (in a kit) than the expected price of the cheaper version.
I shop with this in mind
if it is not main thing then stm would be fine. For me the L is a main thing, on my camera the majority of the time.
MatsP
Senior Member
I wonder how this lens on a RP will perform compared to my 5D2 with 24-105/4 L mk1. 74 year old I want something lighter. That combo looks sweet if it performs decent enough.
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,656
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,952
If it's capable of squeezing out 18 perceptual megapixels of the RP sensor stopped down a bit at a fair price it's interesting.
What is a perceptual mp?
hmm, dxo, 1 #, what does perceptual mpxl mean? -- hint - nobody can explain it
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,656
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,952
A "measure" for sharpness.
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,656
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,952
Yeah, i know, but at some point you just need a "metric" to get things comparable.hmm, dxo, 1 #, what does perceptual mpxl mean? -- hint - nobody can explain it
I think you're proving my point, there are markets for this sort of thing.Well, a 24-70 would have been even shorter. An M series camera with a kit lens is even smaller. Then there is the phone. You get the idea.it's an inch shorter, and if you're running around with small bags like the Peak Sling 3L, every inch matters. It's likely 150-200g lighter than the 24-105L, and in the world of mirrorless, that's a possible future lens right there, samyang is already making RF glass, and their 18mm (sony mount) is only 150g give or take. It's only a matter of time when that becomes a real option.But this lens does not look more portable.
Yeah, another questionable lens. It was supposed to be a poster child for the new shiny mount.
It is like selling an F150 truck with a 4 cylinder engine, just to reduce the cost a bit.I hope they make it super cheap
Guessing $499 by itself, cheaper combo'd with an RP.
nikon has the 24-70 f4
Sony has the 24-70 f4
28-70 f3.5-5.6
Canon can now compete with the 24-105 f3.5-5.6, all in the ballpark length wise, though canon is the fattest, which matters less than length. Not sure how you can complain about this release, it's a damn good one, and out of the lenses mentioned, it could potentially be the best out of the bunch.
as much as you like it to be, not everyone is looking or cares for an L lens.
I'm more in favor of lightweight FF myself because it's much easier to get thin DOF when I slap on primes, and when I want a point and shoot experience, I can get one with a lens like this. I'm not too good to scoff at these types of releases, now waiting for a more appropriate body, like the R6....
Would the problem be solved if you put a sticker over the letter L?
All I said that they could have lowered the price of the L. I know that Canon is not a company known for bold moves but in this shrinking market, they would have to do something bold, I think. With this lens, they just want to have a cheap kit. I am afraid that ILC's are becoming specialty items, and the lower end is sinking even faster.
Back to your L lenses remarks - Canon have some super expensive L lenses. Some of them do not seem to be any better than their EF counterparts, if not worse. Some are stellar but then Canon refuses to update the EF ones. Then there is the race to the bottom with this slow and not so great (if the EF one is any indication) zoom.
All this leaves a huge gap in the middle; where many enthusiasts are at the moment. Switch to the R system and keep your EF lenses (what's the point) or start getting super-expensive RF lenses. This cheapo zoom may lure a few new people but they have a problem with their existing customers. At least with me, anyway.
This is just an opinion.
Last edited:
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
DxO is unreliable (and possibly calculated rather than tested), and OL/Lenstip say you can't compare across sensors. So these days the only sharpness "data" I go by are photographs. The-Digital-Image.com is a great resource for that. I wish DPR would do something similar to their studio test for lenses.
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,656
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,952
I try to compare data. The more sources the better. I think you're right dxo isn't flawless. The new RF 50mm f/1.2 for example does better in real life compared to the dxo-mark scores.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum