Why no RF 24-70 f4?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
biff56
biff56 Contributing Member • Posts: 670
Why no RF 24-70 f4?
1

We have 14-35 and 70-200 f4 lenses in RF mount, but no 24-70. Why Canon? This would complete the f4 set for most of us!

 biff56's gear list:biff56's gear list
Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM
Karl_Guttag Senior Member • Posts: 1,261
Re: Why no RF 24-70 f4?
6

biff56 wrote:

We have 14-35 and 70-200 f4 lenses in RF mount, but no 24-70. Why Canon? This would complete the f4 set for most of us!

Because they already have a 24-105f4L. A 24-70f4L would be redundant and few would probably buy it unless it was signficantly less expensive than the 24-105.

 Karl_Guttag's gear list:Karl_Guttag's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 +13 more
ZX11
ZX11 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,583
RF 24-105 f4?

Karl_Guttag wrote:

biff56 wrote:

We have 14-35 and 70-200 f4 lenses in RF mount, but no 24-70. Why Canon? This would complete the f4 set for most of us!

Because they already have a 24-105f4L. A 24-70f4L would be redundant and few would probably buy it unless it was signficantly less expensive than the 24-105.

Yep. Because RF24-105mm.  Might as well go to 105mm since you are at constant f4.

-- hide signature --

"Very funny, Scotty! Now beam me down my clothes."
"He's dead, Jim! You grab his tri-corder. I'll get his wallet."

 ZX11's gear list:ZX11's gear list
Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon 70-200 F2.8L III Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM +1 more
joenj Contributing Member • Posts: 911
Re: Why no RF 24-70 f4?
2

Karl_Guttag wrote:

biff56 wrote:

We have 14-35 and 70-200 f4 lenses in RF mount, but no 24-70. Why Canon? This would complete the f4 set for most of us!

Because they already have a 24-105f4L. A 24-70f4L would be redundant and few would probably buy it unless it was signficantly less expensive than the 24-105.

That is probably the reason. Still, the IQ of a 24-70 f4 could exceed that of the 24-105 f4.

higheronymous
higheronymous Regular Member • Posts: 271
Re: Why no RF 24-70 f4?

biff56 wrote:

We have 14-35 and 70-200 f4 lenses in RF mount, but no 24-70. Why Canon? This would complete the f4 set for most of us!

I think they figure that for the time being, there are options in that range. 2x 24-105s, a 24-240, 24-70, and 28-70. But it will probably happen eventually would be my thought. The 14-35 made a lot of sense because it is a new type of design that Canon didn't really do on EF mount.

tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 16,869
Re: Why no RF 24-70 f4?

Do we really need every variation of standard zoom?  Why not a 28-105?  Why not 24-85?  35-135mm?  28-90?  35-70?  28-75?  
If we are going to overlap a standard, let’s at least make it interesting.   How about 20-65mm?  Or 30-150mm. Something that lets me straddle two categories and leave an extra lens at home.

PicPocket Veteran Member • Posts: 4,938
Re: already exists

biff56 wrote:

We have 14-35 and 70-200 f4 lenses in RF mount, but no 24-70. Why Canon? This would complete the f4 set for most of us!

14-35, 24-70, 70-200

vs

14-35, 24-105, 70-200

One of those exists. That one also isn't odd one with overlap on one end but not on the other. If we are thinking out of a box, why not 35-70, which probably is even less appealing.

A 24-70 f4 would have to be optically better (the 105 isn't a slouch) or significantly cheaper or much smaller to make any appeal. All of those objectives need more investment which probably isn't the top thing Canon needs right now

-- hide signature --
 PicPocket's gear list:PicPocket's gear list
Canon EOS M50 Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM +15 more
RDM5546
RDM5546 Senior Member • Posts: 2,827
Re: Why no RF 24-70 f4?

joenj wrote:

Karl_Guttag wrote:

biff56 wrote:

We have 14-35 and 70-200 f4 lenses in RF mount, but no 24-70. Why Canon? This would complete the f4 set for most of us!

Because they already have a 24-105f4L. A 24-70f4L would be redundant and few would probably buy it unless it was signficantly less expensive than the 24-105.

That is probably the reason. Still, the IQ of a 24-70 f4 could exceed that of the 24-105 f4.

The RF 24-105f4L IS USM is already an excellent lens. Why do you think a 24-70f4 would be any better. I think the 24-105L is hard to beat in IQ and it is moderate in size. I think the major limitation is that it is not f2.8 or larger which is important low light shooting found indoor.

The RF 24-105f4L is not terribly expensive and is weather sealed.   What is not like and the overlap from 70-105 is trivial  for most buyers.  I would expect Canon will never sell a RF 24-70 because the ROI would be small and they have plenty of other lenses that likely are a higher priority.

 RDM5546's gear list:RDM5546's gear list
Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM Canon G5 X II Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS 7D Mark II +43 more
Wing2 Regular Member • Posts: 464
Re: Why no RF 24-70 f4?

Karl_Guttag wrote:

biff56 wrote:

We have 14-35 and 70-200 f4 lenses in RF mount, but no 24-70. Why Canon? This would complete the f4 set for most of us!

Because they already have a 24-105f4L. A 24-70f4L would be redundant and few would probably buy it unless it was signficantly less expensive than the 24-105.

24-105 f4L is currently the most affordable RF L lens Canon is selling.

I seriously doubt that Canon is willing reduce the price of their L lens by much.

Please note RF 24-105 4-7.1 non-L is selling at 399 and according to CameraLabs.com at 70mm the max aperture is between 5.6 to 6.3, What price users are willing to pay for a 24-70 f4 that is not much brighter at wide angle and just over 1 stop brighter at 70mm and cannot zoom beyond 70mm?

On the high end side, there are already two very good 24-70 f2.8, 28-70 f2 lens that a f4 lens has no chance there.

Rik_C New Member • Posts: 16
Re: Why no RF 24-70 f4?

Yes, just like that. I think the only reason for an 24-70mm f/4 to exist would be to have a relatively very lightweight L-lens. But in a way that would also sort of irrelevant as the 24-105 f/4 weighs 700g while the complementary 70-200 f/4 weighs an almost similar 695g already making it two of the lightest L lenses. Only the 14-35mm f/4 is lighter with 540 grams of weight. The RF 24-105 f/4 is off course by a large margin already the cheapest L lens compared to those other two f/4's.

SergioMPS
SergioMPS Regular Member • Posts: 255
Re: Why no RF 24-70 f4?

24-70 f4  lacks aperture of 24-70 2.8 and extra reach of 24-105
worst features of both lenses in one, understand that throughout EF era that lens was compact but don't think one is required in RF mount

RF 24-105 is compact enough, top quality almost on pair with RF 24-70
in EF i preferd always 24-70 2.8 due to better IQ, but now the RF 24-105L is winner for me over RF 24-70

-- hide signature --
 SergioMPS's gear list:SergioMPS's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M5 Canon EOS R GoPro Hero8 Black Sony RX100 IV +17 more
gossamer88
gossamer88 Contributing Member • Posts: 599
Re: Why no RF 24-70 f4?
3

I had the EF version and it was sharper than the 24-105 v1 and compact too. It also had a neat "macro" feature. But yeah I don't see Canon making an RF version at this point and time.

 gossamer88's gear list:gossamer88's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM +6 more
dmanthree
dmanthree Veteran Member • Posts: 9,682
Re: Why no RF 24-70 f4?

Karl_Guttag wrote:

biff56 wrote:

We have 14-35 and 70-200 f4 lenses in RF mount, but no 24-70. Why Canon? This would complete the f4 set for most of us!

Because they already have a 24-105f4L. A 24-70f4L would be redundant and few would probably buy it unless it was signficantly less expensive than the 24-105.

Uh, they did have an EF version, and will likely produce an RF version, as well. having that smaller and lighter version would be nice.

-- hide signature --

---on the cutting edge---

 dmanthree's gear list:dmanthree's gear list
Sony Mavica FD-200 Apple iPhone 12 Pro
dmanthree
dmanthree Veteran Member • Posts: 9,682
Re: Why no RF 24-70 f4?

biff56 wrote:

We have 14-35 and 70-200 f4 lenses in RF mount, but no 24-70. Why Canon? This would complete the f4 set for most of us!

It will come, eventually. But I doubt it's a priority. Canon makes the EF version, so it's likely we'll see an RF version. Eventally.

-- hide signature --

---on the cutting edge---

 dmanthree's gear list:dmanthree's gear list
Sony Mavica FD-200 Apple iPhone 12 Pro
quiquae Senior Member • Posts: 2,159
Re: Why no RF 24-70 f4?

dmanthree wrote:

Karl_Guttag wrote:

biff56 wrote:

We have 14-35 and 70-200 f4 lenses in RF mount, but no 24-70. Why Canon? This would complete the f4 set for most of us!

Because they already have a 24-105f4L. A 24-70f4L would be redundant and few would probably buy it unless it was signficantly less expensive than the 24-105.

Uh, they did have an EF version, and will likely produce an RF version, as well. having that smaller and lighter version would be nice.

The EF version was not that much smaller than the 24-105, and the IQ wasn't that much better. The only thing that was really nice about it was the 2/3 macro, which allowed me to leave the 100L at home for casual closeups.

It is telling that it was among the first lenses to get discontinued when Canon started culling their EF catalogue.

 quiquae's gear list:quiquae's gear list
Canon PowerShot SD300 Canon EOS R Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +6 more
dmanthree
dmanthree Veteran Member • Posts: 9,682
Re: Why no RF 24-70 f4?

quiquae wrote:

dmanthree wrote:

Karl_Guttag wrote:

biff56 wrote:

We have 14-35 and 70-200 f4 lenses in RF mount, but no 24-70. Why Canon? This would complete the f4 set for most of us!

Because they already have a 24-105f4L. A 24-70f4L would be redundant and few would probably buy it unless it was signficantly less expensive than the 24-105.

Uh, they did have an EF version, and will likely produce an RF version, as well. having that smaller and lighter version would be nice.

The EF version was not that much smaller than the 24-105, and the IQ wasn't that much better. The only thing that was really nice about it was the 2/3 macro, which allowed me to leave the 100L at home for casual closeups.

It is telling that it was among the first lenses to get discontinued when Canon started culling their EF catalogue.

We never know. Canon mighty make a different variant of the standard zoom, like a 28-80 that, maybe, could be smaller and lighter. Whatever, I'll be patient.

-- hide signature --

---on the cutting edge---

 dmanthree's gear list:dmanthree's gear list
Sony Mavica FD-200 Apple iPhone 12 Pro
higheronymous
higheronymous Regular Member • Posts: 271
Re: Why no RF 24-70 f4?

gossamer88 wrote:

I had the EF version and it was sharper than the 24-105 v1 and compact too. It also had a neat "macro" feature. But yeah I don't see Canon making an RF version at this point and time.

Macro is best on long lens, that how it work. Make good macro need looooong lens. Little macro is toy.

tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 16,869
Re: Why no RF 24-70 f4?

Rik_C wrote:

Yes, just like that. I think the only reason for an 24-70mm f/4 to exist would be to have a relatively very lightweight L-lens. But in a way that would also sort of irrelevant as the 24-105 f/4 weighs 700g while the complementary 70-200 f/4 weighs an almost similar 695g already making it two of the lightest L lenses. Only the 14-35mm f/4 is lighter with 540 grams of weight. The RF 24-105 f/4 is off course by a large margin already the cheapest L lens compared to those other two f/4's.

If we look at Sony, who has mirrorless versions of both, the 24-70 is quite a bit smaller and lighter.   420g vs 660g.   May be nothing to some people, but a big difference to others.

A7 III + FE 24-70mm F4 ZA OSS Carl Zeiss Vario Tes... size comparison - PXLMAG.com

tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 16,869
Re: Why no RF 24-70 f4?

dmanthree wrote:

quiquae wrote:

dmanthree wrote:

Karl_Guttag wrote:

biff56 wrote:

We have 14-35 and 70-200 f4 lenses in RF mount, but no 24-70. Why Canon? This would complete the f4 set for most of us!

Because they already have a 24-105f4L. A 24-70f4L would be redundant and few would probably buy it unless it was signficantly less expensive than the 24-105.

Uh, they did have an EF version, and will likely produce an RF version, as well. having that smaller and lighter version would be nice.

The EF version was not that much smaller than the 24-105, and the IQ wasn't that much better. The only thing that was really nice about it was the 2/3 macro, which allowed me to leave the 100L at home for casual closeups.

It is telling that it was among the first lenses to get discontinued when Canon started culling their EF catalogue.

We never know. Canon mighty make a different variant of the standard zoom, like a 28-80 that, maybe, could be smaller and lighter. Whatever, I'll be patient.

Make it a 21-60mm f4 and I'm in.

biff56
OP biff56 Contributing Member • Posts: 670
Re: Why no RF 24-70 f4?

That was my point….

 biff56's gear list:biff56's gear list
Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads