Even if the 2,8/24-105 becomes quite a brick, it will, I'll save weight. Switching lenses on narrow mountain paths is fastidious AND risky (for the lenses). As to the RF 24-105 F.4 L, I own it, but I'm not so enthusiastic about it, when compared to my M lenses. I'd like the new (CR 1 !) 24-105 to be optically in the RF 28-70 F.2 league
For me, this new 24-105 will be too much extra size, weight, and price over the already excellent 24-105 F4. Yes, my RF 24-105 f4 is an outstanding lens. It's my go-to lens for event photography.
\n \n\n\n\ncanon rf 24 105 f4 weight
Suited to landscapes, events and travel, a versatile Canon 24-105 mm lens remains lightweight and suited to intrepid photographers Quick View Canon RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM Lens While they measure 3.3 inches wide, the 24-70mm is 0.7 inches longer than the 24-105mm. In terms of weight, the 24-70mm is 0.6 mm heavier than the other one. The slight difference in length and weight is due to the number of aperture blades.
The RF 24-105 f4 kicks the EF 24-105 f4 ver.1 in the you know what. Canon EOS R7 Canon EOS R6 Mark II Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L
The current IBIS tech in mirrorless bodies makes the F4 more than adequate for a variety of light situation. If they make it F2.8 and double the weight/size, not to mention price, who is going to carry this around all day. It defeats the purpose of having a 24-105 zoom in the first place.
Well, optics only get worse if you try too hard to get all the goodies. Compare the 28-70/2 with the 24-70/2.8. Going for quality increases the weight significantly, and they had to shorten the
The Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM zooms a bit further than the 24-70mm F2.8, and while it
.