RF 24-105 for $400 retail

f/7.1


Again, f/7.1

As far as I can recall, in the last 30 years Canon has not made a lens that even hits f/6.3,. those f/stops were left to the 3rd party Bigma style megazooms.
And yet now we suddenly have f/7.1 in TWO new lens designs, one they are calling an "L"

I'm not on board with this myself.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19009698
.
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.

.

Tom -- you sound like a broke elitist LMAO

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19009698
.
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. .
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.
.

They do have the little group you are talking about, it's just that you are not in it and, by your own admission, never will be.
You've told us often enough that you never buy new gear (1D MK3 exception?) but would rather wait ten years for the price to drop.
Then you complain that people are matching your level of work because they have newer gear that makes their lives easier

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19009718
f/7.1


Again, f/7.1

As far as I can recall, in the last 30 years Canon has not made a lens that even hits f/6.3,. those f/stops were left to the 3rd party Bigma style megazooms.
And yet now we suddenly have f/7.1 in TWO new lens designs, one they are calling an "L"

I'm not on board with this myself.

F/6.3 v/s 7.1

Its 1/3 a stop

With the ISO improvements being what they are my attitudes is Who cares

umphotography wrote in post #19011768
F/6.3 v/s 7.1

Its 1/3 a stop

With the ISO improvements being what they are my attitudes is Who cares

.
These days, people's thoughts about aperture should have nothing to do at all with shutter speed or the exposure triangle. . It is purely about depth of field and subject isolation and about the finer points of image quality when it comes to rendering.

Some of us scrutinize all of the little out-of-focus things in the foreground and background and want them to look a certain way. . Things like blades of grass and leaves and twigs. . The way they are rendered is EXTREMELY important. . Every 1/3 of a stop really does affect the rendering of objects in these out-of-focus backgrounds and foregrounds.

Often, out-of-focus blades of grass or other vegetation look/looks a little more "dreamy" when it/they are/is blurred out a wee bit more. . And "dreamy looking" out-of-focus vegetation is something that some of us strive for in our wildlife images. . It is almost as important as the animal itself.


.

Agree with Tom on this. When I read of the 7.1 minimum aperture I wondered how we're going to get more separation so the subject pops. Also, knowing the lens is typically its sharpest at 2 or 3 f-stops down from wide open, that means I be shooting at f/11 or f/13?

Most of what I've read regarding this lens focuses on what it can't do. Let me pose this scenario:

I'm (sometimes) an amateur wildlife photographer and that's my primary reason for going into the woods, but while I'm there ... this lens would allow me to capture landscapes, mushrooms, butterflies, and other smallish things, in a very small, cheap package.

Also, I shoot Mother's Day portraits at my church every other year and you never know what size group is going to want a photo. This lens is perfect for that as it'll be locked at f/8 anyway. I typically prefer primes, so spending a lot of money on a zoom lens is not very high on my to-do list.

I can't disagree with this lenses shortcomings, but let's not act like it's useless.

respectfully

Naturalist wrote in post #19012290
Agree with Tom on this. When I read of the 7.1 minimum aperture I wondered how we're going to get more separation so the subject pops. Also, knowing the lens is typically its sharpest at 2 or 3 f-stops down from wide open, that means I be shooting at f/11 or f/13?

Its called Telephoto compression.

You get close enough that background is going to separate and blur. The Closer you are the more it will blur- FACT !!!!

The compromise is at 500MM you have the reach to get a shot that you cant get with a 100-400 and you can always use Photoshop if you have a keeper you need to manipulate

500mm, hand held like a 100-400 and ability to add a TC and still hand hold...Im really interested

Im comparing directly against a 100-400 v/s a 100-500 with a 2/3 stop loss......I think its going to be a no brainer especially if you compare directly against a 400 F/5.6 prime....then its a real no brainer....and the 400 prime is a darn fine lens

kmilo wrote in post #19012302
Most of what I've read regarding this lens focuses on what it can't do. Let me pose this scenario:

I'm (sometimes) an amateur wildlife photographer and that's my primary reason for going into the woods, but while I'm there ... this lens would allow me to capture landscapes, mushrooms, butterflies, and other smallish things, in a very small, cheap package.

Also, I shoot Mother's Day portraits at my church every other year and you never know what size group is going to want a photo. This lens is perfect for that as it'll be locked at f/8 anyway. I typically prefer primes, so spending a lot of money on a zoom lens is not very high on my to-do list.

I can't disagree with this lenses shortcomings, but let's not act like it's useless.

respectfully

If it's sharp (and the RF24-105/4 certainly has a reputation for sharpness), then I could see this lens being used by people for either travel and/or studio work.

umphotography wrote in post #19011768
F/6.3 v/s 7.1

Its 1/3 a stop

With the ISO improvements being what they are my attitudes is Who cares

I certainly would. Even if ISO improvements are certainly there (and the RP puts in quite a performance), 7.1 is still quite the hit to take and is certainly limiting compared to f/4. If you need to bump up the ISO just to reach a normal shutter speed/exposure in a normally lit situation, then you have diminishing returns and you become less flexible than if you had access to f/4. Improved ISO performance isn't an excuse to start considering 7.1 the new 5.6.

If Canon continues to be putting such underwhelming lenses for hobbyists (I mean, unless the performance is out-of-this-world good, then it's hard to even consider this to even be a prosumer let alone an enthusiast lens), then I might end up actually being happy about switching to Sony, whereas now I'm still overall reluctant about the move.

I don't suppose anyone has seen the aperture cutoffs yet? I hope it's the following:

24-35 ... f/4
36-70 ... f/5.6
71-105 ... f/7.1

Naturalist wrote in post #19012290
Agree with Tom on this. When I read of the 7.1 minimum aperture I wondered how we're going to get more separation so the subject pops. Also, knowing the lens is typically its sharpest at 2 or 3 f-stops down from wide open, that means I be shooting at f/11 or f/13?

Get closer and aperture is a 2nd thought

want to know why Robamys 600F4 and 400 Do shots look so good at F/8.0 and 11.0?

He is right on top of them

Its called telephoto compression. So If you have a 7.1 lens and you are right on top...background is going to blur and blow to pieces

one of the 3rd party lens makers had a 28-105 2.8 years ago, and it wasn't exactly all that heavy or bulky

https://www.fredmirand​a.com …/242/sort/7/cat​/43/page/1

With the new mount, advancement in technology, etc.... I'm sure this could be improved on!

umphotography wrote in post #19021389
Get closer and aperture is a 2nd thought

want to know why Robamys 600F4 and 400 Do shots look so good at F/8.0 and 11.0?

He is right on top of them

Its called telephoto compression. So If you have a 7.1 lens and you are right on top...background is going to blur and blow to pieces

.
It is far more complex that that.

There are many times I will be right on top of a critter and still need a big aperture to blur the background acceptably. . It's about the ratio between the camera-to-subject distance and the subject-to-background distance. . Those distances relative to one another are what determines the degree of background blur*, not just the camera-to-subject distance.

And for the record there is no such thing as telephoto compression. . Doesn't exist. . Never has, and physics say it never will.

*For any given focal length / aperture combination.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19021438
.
It is far more complex that that.

There are many times I will be right on top of a critter and still need a big aperture to blur the background acceptably. . It's about the ratio between the camera-to-subject distance and the subject-to-background distance. . Those distances relative to one another are what determines the degree of background blur, not just the camera-to-subject distance.

And for the record there is no such thing as telephoto compression. . Doesn't exist. . Never has, and physics say it never will.

.

Agree with most of the above (don’t know much about physics, so won’t comment on that part).

To add to it, I will say that part of the issue of the ‘get closer to your subject it will be the same’ argument is that, by getting closer, you’re already compromising on composition: you’re not getting the same shot as if you were using an f/4 lens. (That’s discounting situations when getting closer just isn’t possible.)

If ‘getting closer’ was such an easy fix to the issue, then Canon and cie wouldn’t be able to charge the ~$1000-smth difference in price between 1.8 and 1.2 primes.

It amazes me that the current RF 24-240 is only f/6.3 at the long end, and this one will be 7.1 at the long end.