RF 24-105 for $400 retail

Looks like they will put out some cheap RF lens after all

look at the aperture range...crazy F/4--7.1 with IS

click here

https://www.dpreview.c​om …rf-24-105mm-f4-7-1-is-stm

The RF equivalent of the 28-135, I feel, allows for less light, but is wider and sharper.

.
Yeah, when I saw that they were developing a new 24-105, I thought,

"Oh, good. Finally an f2.8 version of that lens. . Shoulda done that years ago."

Then I saw that it was just a cheap slow f7.1 lens and got a bit depressed.

I keep wanting bigger, heavier, faster versions of existing lenses, and they seem to keep coming up with lenses that are lighter and more affordable. . Sheesh. . I'm beginning to feel like I will never get everything that I want.


.

A 24-105 2.8 would be everything I could ask for, but also would probably be very expensive and big and heavy.

and still as optically flawed

ed rader wrote in post #19009171
.
and still as optically flawed
.

.
I'm not so sure about that.

Canon makes a 50-1000mm zoom lens that is pretty spectacular, optically. . If they can do that, why don't you think they'd be able to make a 24-105mm zoom that is equally spectacular?


.

50-1000 mm ? Are you sure?

alfaber wrote in post #19009461
.
50-1000 mm ? Are you sure?
.

.
Yes. . It is quite well known in wildlife and video documentary circles.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=xpF_fV4Sm4g

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …TQOFKN0VvV4BoCk​MMQAvD_BwE


.

now you sound like what's her name. this is a kit lens and will come bundled with RP level cameras. it was never destined to be made to your unrealistic standards. it'll be a fine walkaround and cheap and that's about it.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19009142
.
Yeah, when I saw that they were developing a new 24-105, I thought,

"Oh, good. Finally an f2.8 version of that lens. . Shoulda done that years ago."

Then I saw that it was just a cheap slow f7.1 lens and got a bit depressed.

I keep wanting bigger, heavier, faster versions of existing lenses, and they seem to keep coming up with lenses that are lighter and more affordable. . Sheesh. . I'm beginning to feel like I will never get everything that I want.


.

I think someone hijacked Tom's account. surely he can't be saying he wants a 10-pound walkaround that also costs 10 grand.

ed rader wrote in post #19009587
.
I think someone hijacked Tom's account. surely he can't be saying he wants a 10-pound walkaround that also costs 10 grand.
.

.
No, I never said that.

I think a 24-105mm would be very reasonable in both price and size. . I think it would actually be smaller and lighter than my regular everyday "walkaround" lens, the 100-400mm, which is only 4 or 5 pounds and carries quite easily and effortlessly.

And I also think a 24-105 f2.8 would be priced within reason, say less than $4,000.

What makes you think differently?

.

no one has ever made a 24-105 f2.8 and there's no way you're in the market for even an $4k walkaround unless you hit the lottery since the last time we talked.

but this is, what, the fifth 24-105 canon has made? these are kit lenses. they were never meant to be anything more. my original point was it will be as optically flawed as all the 24-105s before it and at this price maybe even more so. sure as hell is slower.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19009142
.
Yeah, when I saw that they were developing a new 24-105, I thought,

"Oh, good. Finally an f2.8 version of that lens. . Shoulda done that years ago."

Then I saw that it was just a cheap slow f7.1 lens and got a bit depressed.

I keep wanting bigger, heavier, faster versions of existing lenses, and they seem to keep coming up with lenses that are lighter and more affordable. . Sheesh. . I'm beginning to feel like I will never get everything that I want.


.

you really thought it would be 2.8?

and if you did , why?

rantercsr wrote in post #19009688
you really thought it would be 2.8?

and if you did , why?

.
Yes.

Because I know they already had a 24-105mm f4, and that has always seemed extremely slow to me. . There are times when I need the range from 24mm to 105mm all in one lens, and when I cannot get the degree of background blur that I desire with the f4 versions that I have owned. . So for many years I have seen the need for an f2.8 version of this zoom. . Because I see this need so acutely, it seems reasonable that Canon would fulfill the need. . They haven't been afraid to make other lenses in the $2,000 to $4,000 range, so it seemed to me like a 24-105mm in at this aperture would be reasonable for them to make.

That is why.


.

ed rader wrote in post #19009678
no one has ever made a 24-105 f2.8 and there's no way you're in the market for even an $4k walkaround unless you hit the lottery since the last time we talked.

.
Right. . OF COURSE I am not in the market for it. . I never said I was in the market for it, or would ever be interested in purchasing one, did I?

I have very very strong opinions about what Canon makes and what they don't make, even when I have no interest in buying or using said lenses. . I like to have big loud strong opinions on things that will never effect me in real life. . Something doesn't have to have an actual effect on me - or even a percieved effect on me - for me to take a very strong stance about it.

Now, for something about Canon lenses that very much does effect me:

In general, I wish that Canon would cater more to the elitist photographer so that there would be a greater barrier to entry when it comes to heigh-end wildlife image making. . I liked the old days (5-10 years ago) when it was really hard for people to take world-class wildlife photos without spending $6,000 to $12,000 on a supertelephoto lens. . That helped to protect someone like myself (who spent his life savings on such a lens) form having the market flooded by a bunch of hobbyists being able to take good images and sell them in competition against me. . These days, good-enough telephoto lenses are priced for the masses, and it makes it harder for me to produce images that the "regular guy" can't produce.

In a general, overall sense, if camera manufacturers make more elitist level gear, and bypass the smaller, lighter, more affordable cameras that are practical for the regular guy, then the regular guy will have a harder time making images that are on the level that the elitist guys make, and that would help a little bit to protect the elitist guys and make their work more exclusive and marketable. . Barrier to entry can serve an important purpose in protecting those at the top by making it easier for them to maintain their position above everybody else. . I would love to be in a little class above everybody else, and have that position protected so that I could just stay there above them. . Wouldn't that be a grand situation to find one's self in?! . Unfortunately, the very opposite is happening, and the manufacturers bringing "good enough" lenses to the masses is making it even worse.

.