This Should be Impossible! | Canon RF 24 -105mm f/2.8 Lens

[@robertm3951]

The holy moly trinity: RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS RF 24-105 f/2.8 IS RF 100-300 f/2.8 IS

[@greenlantern2414]

The pricetag for RF 100-300 f/2.8 IS is impossible to pay :D

[@codythep]

Underrated comment

[@stormvr1070]

I wish.

[@Bikerbeest]

Holy trinity from NIkon Z camera is 14-24 mm 2.8 , 24-70 mm 2.8 and the 70-200 mm 2.8 as you can you see there is no overlap between these 3 lenses and I am very lucky to have all 3 of them

[@GurvinderSingh-ns4vs]

😂😂 holy moly 😂😂

[@ashish0831]

F2 is not 24 70 .. its 28 - 70 F2

[@ryansublermedia]

Personal experience. The 24-105 2.8 is SHARP. Not just a little. It’s very very sharp. I used to think the same way until I put one in my hands. Now I’m saving for the 24-105 2.8, RF 70-200 2.8, and 100-500. I’ll just rent wide when necessary.

[@vimalneha]

This is exactly what I have decided when I switch to Canon from NIKON. The first I will buy is RF 70-200 2.8.

[@visionz_n_media]

This could easily be the only lens I would ever need for the RF mount. As a portrait photographer, this lens gives me all the focal lengths I commonly use. I appreciate Canon not incorporating the electronic zoom in the body of the lens that could potentially raise the price for a feature that someone like me would not need. Great job Canon

[@ER-gn8io]

Ja, aber das Objektiv sieht unvollkommen aus! Die zwei Gewindebohrungen und die Kontakte liegen frei. Eine Abdeckung zum Schutz der Kontakte wäre Pflicht gewesen!

[@fastflame200]

I look at it this way: 2024 is Paris Olympics. The R1 comes. There is a RF 24-105 f2.8 and the RF 100-300 f2.8 for Indoor sports, 2 camera, 2 lenses and you have it all covered. The big RF 400mm f2.8 and RF 600mm f4 primes are there to cover the outdoor events. They have all the glass they need. BTW, I have the RF 100-300 f2.8 and the RF 24-105 f2.8 is on pre-order. For Indoor Basketball, I have will everything I need.

[@ca.rin.o]

28*-70 f.2

[@JustinCase1021]

As an event photographer....this lens will be perfect. Cant wait to get one.

[@digitaldevigner4080]

To be honest I have a 24-70 f2.8 Tamron I hardly ever use. I prefer primes these days. Not just because they are faster but they are also more compact and lighter. I just find the 24-70 range is really easy manage with primes and taking a step forward or back. To me where zooms become critical is when we don’t have our feet as an option. Like shooting a subject far ways or getting details in an impossible to reach space like a statue on top of a building. These wider zooms are more about convenience than they are a necessity to me. A 24-105 does give a bit more range into telephoto but to be honest I don’t even find 200mm long enough at times. I just feel 105mm isn’t going to prevent me from moving to a 70-200 or more likely my 100-400 lens. Even indoors that little extra reach on full frame just doesn’t feel like it would be enough. Not when 200mm already isn’t enough in some cases. Even though the 24-240mm is dark and not as good optically at least it provides enough range to cover a lot. If I had to choose between using a bit more ISO or being limited to 105mm I think I’m going to choose dealing with the extra noise in post of the 24-240. Especially for video where some of the corner limitations of the 24-240 are not as apparent. This is a neat lens however and I do know there are some out there that swear by the 24-105 f4 lens. They choose it over a 24-70 and 70-200 because they find themselves rarely shooting over 105mm anyway. They are willing to sacrifice that one stop of light for that one lens to do it all. Now they no longer have to sacrifice that one stop of light to get that. This could become the live on the body permanently kind of lens for some. Especially for those ok with sometimes using a APSC crop to make this a 168mm f2.8 lens. Those users now have a single lens capable of reaching 24mm to 168mm if they make use of cropping. In the 45MP 8k video space we even potentially have the ability for a 2x crop for 4K video in post. That gives us a 24mm to 210mm range by cropping 8k in post at f2.8. I’m not a fan of doing that. Just pointing out this lens could serve some interesting purposes.

[@Buzzer9000]

This is my lens for documentary film on the R5C!

[@trayo2479]

Same bro

[@devinscheck1261]

Is there a difference between the Canon EOS R5 C Mirrorless Cinema Camera Kit with RF 24-70mm f/2.8 Lens and the Canon EOS R5 C Mirrorless Cinema Camera Kit with RF 24-105mm f/2.8

[@JoshDiazDOP]

Sounds like two different lenses.

[@davidkouris2832]

I'm gonna take a big Chance/Gamble on this lens. I just passed down my R6 with the 24-105f4 to my son back in early October. I'm loving my R6 mkII It's perfect for me. I currently have the RF24-70 f2.8 and the RF 70-200 f2.8 The good news is that I have a potential buyer for my 24-70 The 3 big Camera Folks here in the good ole USA offer a 12 month, zero financing line of credit which I took advantage of. This gives me 12 months to pay off the lens or a 30-60 return policy. I didn't realize how much I missed the 105 focal length until I gave mine to my son. We will see. I appreciate your videos Keep up the good work.

[@darylcheshire1618]

I had the EF24-7-mm f/2.8L, it was a lovely lens but it was a heavy beast and I often left it home. I considered getting the EF24-70mm f/4L which was smaller. When I got the R5, I sold this lens and got the RF24-105 f/4 lens.

[@JoshDiazDOP]

I loved my Canon 24-70 EF M2. It's great that you found something that worked best for you.

[@livemusic]

KZbinrs who get such lenses sing the praises. I’ve seen horrible vignetting, for one thing. Software could improve that and I realize what has been sent out isn’t the final rendition. Besides the horrible and other negatives, the expensive zoom attachment is a joke, in my opinion. What is up with not having a rocker zoom??? Why buttons? Want to force us to use yet another addition of a zoom on our tripod handle? I’m excited about this lens while also wanting to ignore it.

[@tonytech5520]

I agree about the ridiculous price of the power zoom adapter. Good thing it's a optional separate item. I'm hopeful that they'll consider redesigning it and lowering the price.

[@livemusic]

@@tonytech5520 That would be nice, but I only see the price rising. I’d like to know why they didn’t go with a zoom rocker, which is the best option by far for functionality and the feel in the hand. As much as I have always loved camcorders (I have and XF705), I’d sure love such a zoom option with my C70 and R5. As far as vignetting, I wonder if firmware will address that for the final production model.

[@robertfaulkner1824]

Yeah it’s supposed to be a rocker but yet it isn’t. It should also be included. I still want this lend more than any other.

[@tonytech5520]

@@robertfaulkner1824 I have a feeling that a rocker works better when the camera sits on the shoulder or on the body of a hand-held camera/camcorder.

[@DanielFazzari]

Nice overview and some good questions! I am super stoked for this lens! It ends the 24-70 f/2.8 vs. 24-105 f/4 debate. For me, it's a one-and-done lens for *most cases. I like the direction Canon is going with pushing boundaries. Not interested in a 35mm 1.2/1.4, unlike many folks. Since owning the 28-70, I haven't used my 50 1.2, and I know I wouldn't use a 35. These new zooms are approaching prime quality, making them the go-to for me.

[@ER-gn8io]

Das 28-70 mit Blende 2 hat große Nachteile insbesondere für Filmer! Das Fokus Breathing ist extrem ausgeprägt und das Gewicht ist für viele Anwendungen hinderlich. Mit so einem Ziegelstein in den Urlaub zu fahren ist doch ermüdend! Es werden viele gebrauchte 28-70 angeboten! Warum wohl! Ach so, das wichtigste noch zum Schluss: Es fehlen 4 mm auf der breiten Seite, was sehr viel ist im Vergleich zum 24-70. Durch das schon genannte Focus Breathing sind es nicht 28 mm am breiten Ende sondern maximal 30 mm. Beim Focus Breathing ändert sich der Bildausschnitt! Nur meine Meinung!

[@Razor2048]

Canon needs to make a full frame version of the sigma 18-35 f/1.8 but possibly expand on the range a little to 18-50mm. f/1.8.

[@parmanduke]

Id rather get the Tamron 35 150mm which can be had online these days for under $1400. The price of the Canon is an utter joke. My preference is for the longer reach too.

[@JoshDiazDOP]

I don't think Canon is completely off-base with their price provided the lens performs well. It's a more versatile 24-70 with some small cavieats. It's a shame Tamron doesn't have their 35-150 on RF. That would be a fun comparison.

[@BMJotzo]

Well, get the Tamron then.

[@parmanduke]

@@BMJotzo And you go get the Canon and tell uS how you feel afterwards

[@parmanduke]

@@JoshDiazDOP And their 24 70 f2.8 pricing is also bonkers.

[@southbridgeforestHOA]

yep 15 to 35 with the tamron is the only 2 lenses many need for weddings and events.

[@coldfacejay]

Would this fit the blackmagic pocket cinema camera 4k and 6k?

[@JoshDiazDOP]

You bet.

[@WupperVideo]

Nice and informative video. Thanks.

[@nate61989]

2:11 Calmly going over features, then suddenly: “And oh my god are we breaking the bank with this one!” 😂

[@robertfaulkner1824]

As a video shooter I’m most into the actual functionality on the lens itself. Love that aperture ring and also the motorized rocker zoom. 2.8 is a nice bonus but I’m totally happy with my f/4 24-105 until this came along. Feels more like a video lens. Would love if they did something like this for the 15-35

[@NoSuRReNDeR001]

the regular r5 is FINE for video the high temp setting its fine... im so tired of it getting shoved over... and if output to v+you get past the time limit in Pr raw(in clog2 BTW according to the ninja).. plus you get a very benficial cropped to s35ish 5k60 so I can use to as b cam to my RED Gemini... Its obv has no fan and no canon video menu but dont brush it aside either at least it has a stabilizer... my $2000+ 50mm rf f1.2L is way more useable in photo mode.

[@emanrovemanchan1527]

the new holy trinity will be 10 - 20, 24 - 105, 100 - 500 maybe? that could make sense.

[@DoloresLowe]

Yes! These three lenses + a dedicated sherpa and I will be set!

[@Strongbear2013]

I have 2 questions: 1) if you thought it impossible before to make this kind of lens, would it be possible at all for Canon to make a 15-105 f2.8 lens or even one with f1.8? 2) would this lens fit any Canon camera body or only certain models?

[@whiterock1865]

Yeah it’s tough, I have 24-105 f/4 and I use that in all lighting conditions because I just use on camera flash, or strobes where extra light is needed. I also have the 28 to 70 F2 to give me that shallow depth of field for the More beauty shot situations. But I don’t like using that lens for run & gun events. That’s more for weddings or high-end events. So I was thinking between this new 24 to 105 F2.8, or an 85 1.2 DS to give me something much more unique and special than what I already have. I don’t mind the weight of the big heavy lenses, but you do have to admire how light the F/4 version is…. Other than price I think the new version checks a lot of boxes for people but I think it’ll make it only for the most invested is obviously the price and I think that’s more than just a money grab. I think that is Canon trying to keep it a little bit premium And demand that they can keep up with.

[@phungmaproduction4005]

sony 24-240 f2.8 all in one lens..possible ??

[@jessejayphotography]

This lens is cool to see but still kinda niche to me. I could see it being a better choice than the 28-70 f/2 because at 105 f/2.8 you would have a more shallow depth of field for portrait shots at a wedding and extra reach for the ceremony. Still doesn’t replace a 50mm or 85mm 1.2 for full body portraits. Personally, I would like to see a 28-300 f2.8-5.6 for an all around video lens.

[@justesmond]

Just a correction Canon makes the 28-70 f/2, not a 24-70 f/2. Your points are still correct, but I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of the mistake.

[@hbp_]

This lens will put more pressure on Zeiss and Angénieux rather than Tamron. Tamron has been always selling cheaper alternatives, while Zeiss and Angénieux have been on the opposite side selling something that Canon and Sony couldn't design on their own. Now suddenly there is a 1st-party lens that costs a fraction and is better on paper (at least in some simple metrics).

[@РустамГ-р5ь]

Спасибо за видео обзор. Но мне очень хочется дождаться canon rf 35 mm. Интересно, когда он выйдет?

[@KeithAndreen]

new holy trinity: RF 10-20 f/4 IS STM (got it) or RF 15-35mm f/2.8 IS (got it) RF 24-105mm f/2.8 IS (ordered it...and can't wait to get my hands on it) RF 100-300mm f/2.8 IS (got it)

[@Mother-Russia-Z]

When will the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Z be released?

[@ajayps100]

End of this year

[@reginaldwalton]

OK, maybe I just don’t understand the lens making process, but how is it more difficult to make a 2.8 24-105 lens, than a 28-70 2.0 or a 70-200 2.8 or even a 100-300 2.8?

[@sbove]

Wider mm range + faster = trickier and heavier. Shaving off mm (28 instead of 24, 70 instead of 105) buys them tons of additional leeway even at 2.0. BTW, 28-70 2.0 is no easy design, and the front element handling 70mm at 2.0 is going to be large/heavy (which it is in the case of the RF Canon). There are cine zooms by panavision, cooke, zeiss and angenieux that cover this kind of wide focal length range with excellent optical performance at fixed 2.8 but they are HUGE, HEAVY & insanely expensive. Very hard engineering & manufacturing/build problems. There is no free lunch in optics.

[@mikeyseifert80]

I'm a aspiring wildlife photographer/content creator.... aside from my telephoto and big prime do you think this would be a good go to for everything else video or would a 70-200 2.8 be enough?

[@JoshDiazDOP]

In my previous career as a photojournalist, I relied heavily on the 24-70 2.8 because of its versitility. This lens is even more versatile. If you've already got your long teles for wildlife then this is a great pickup. Just focus on what exactly you're looking to shoot because it's likely the same look could be had for a lot less money.

[@brentj7564]

It will be interesting to see this compared with Tamron 35-150! It is a lens that has gotten rave reviews and came out quite some time ago already for Sony cameras.

[@MarcoZhang689]

Tamron made a 28-105mm 2.8 lens couple decades ago, IQ was pretty bad tho.

[@jaydenbeltran8614]

Great vid man

[@JoshDiazDOP]

Thanks!

[@TheNewMexicoMan]

Tamron had a 28-105 f/2.8 lens in 1998! I still have mine! The focal range at f/2.8 all the way through is nothing new!with this news is nothing new!

[@ER-gn8io]

Sie vergleichen Fallobst mit Handelsklasse 1... Mehr gibt es dazu nicht zu sagen!

[@SnowyLeopardFrom1997]

The new Canon Trinity, the Crinity: 15-35 2.8 24-105 2.8 100-300 2.8

[@ethan_webb]

I was gonna say the same thing, though the 100-300 is so out of reach for just about everyone at almost $10k

[@TimucinLeflef]

Will they ever bring out an EF version of this?

absolutely not likely. Canon is focused on RF

[@JoshDiazDOP]

Canon has said that they are not making any new lenses for the EF mount.

[@gordonsmith33]

SONY !! please make somethign like this!!!

[@pawetura549]

Its not parafical and function ring is click 😢

[@justinhatchvisuals]

Love the 35-150 mm f/2-2.8

[@JoshDiazDOP]

Very unique lens.

[@wcsdiaries]

can the 24-105 2.8 be put on a gimbal?@@JoshDiazDOP

[@JoshDiazDOP]

@wcsdiaries Of course! The Canon 24-105 f/2.8 is slated to come in at around 1.4KG. The Ronin RS3 Gimbal has a maximum capacity of 3KG, giving you lots of room for a camera. Just make sure to check the capacity of whichever gimbal you own to make sure.

[@wcsdiaries]

I'm worried more about the length tbh. Do you think you can still balance a gimbal with a lens that long? I'd be super front heavy@@JoshDiazDOP

[@set3777]

That is an APSC (FE) lens?

[@mbismbismb]

Canon trying to flipped out Tamron hahaha we all know who has the biggest stake in tamron

[@MisterM-ow6qk]

Too heavy and extremely expensive. Canon needs to reconsider who puts the prices on these lenses. I have to sell a kidney 🥴 in order to buy a good lens. No thanks Canon.

[@LukeSchaeferFilms]

This ain’t for the level you are working at! Try a different lens!

[@ER-gn8io]

Die Zielgruppe ist extrem klein für dieses Hybrid(Objektiv). Die Stückzahlen sind vergleichsweise gering daher der von Canon kalkulierte Preis!

[@ushirogeri8085]

Zoom from 70 to 105 is barely noticeable. There is no point in carrying a long tube for this small approximate difference.

[@syriagrapher]

My baby

[@michaelbell75]

$3,000...and still no 3rd party lens support 5 years later 😂

[@ER-gn8io]

Was hat das mit dem vorgestellten Objektiv zu tun! Absolute Thema Verfehlung!

[@lemmonsinmyeyes]

*heavy breathing cat meme*

[@ruff1draft]

I think Nikon need to do the same with there 24-120mm lens

[@Mike-qo8nm]

Weight, size, PRICE. Yeah no thanks. Carry tried and true 70-200 2.8 and a couple small primes.

[@charruaporelmundo]

Vamos!!,...even tamron have a 24-105 from the 90's!!...yeah,...not optically perfect but How it was for the 90's standard? , The real reason is they want us to buy 2 2.8 lenses, and not just 1. They did this, before tamron come out with it.

[@ronnieguzman7023]

yes it is possible Tamron got 35-150 f2-2.8

[@set3777]

That is an APSC FE lens?

[@aperture8983]

In this Ras Nikon s will 24-120 f2.8 in $10,000 us dollar 😂 haha

[@jaegerschtulmann]

No it’s not impossible especially when canon doesn’t care about making all their gear freaking humongous 😂. The tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 is more impressive and still smaller.

[@karlweb1]

28-70 2.8

[@godsinbox]

nothing is impossible if you have electronic vignette removal! Just ask Sony. I see that only the first 4 elements are larger than the throat diameter, hmmm suspicious! and incredibly, the next 19(!) elements are there to shape the light (minus 2 for stabe) if you were to do the T-stop testing for light transmission, you would be in a fan-boi blubber with the pi$$ poor result (I'd Hazard a guess of f3.5 - 4.5) I get it, lens design is VERY hard. the marketing department also work hard to MARKET this 23 element abomination.

[@stakand3972]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@parmanduke]

Is Canon trying to milk their suckers oops I mean customers to pay $3k for that lens and other overpriced lenses for the next few years and then allow 3rd party eventually? I’m done with Canon. Go Sony and Nikon!!!