They already make a smaller version man... it's the 24-105 f4. It's not possible to get that f/2.8 aputure and all the other features in a smaller package. The fact they got everything in it thats there now is borderline miraculous.
It is possible, Tamron did it! I still have the Tamron 28-105 f/2.8 EF mount lens I bought 20 years ago. It's just under 6 inches long at 28 mm but the barrel extends out as you zoom. With the go-gillion megapixels now, it's not tack sharp like you would need with today's cameras. But on my original Canon EOS 5D, it never left my camera!
One of the reasons I bought it was because it has the foot I personally like using the foot as a platform to hold it on when I’m running around shooting video or photography. Especially when I’m shooting video because I have the 28 to 70 and the 85 f/1.2 and since they don’t have any lens support to mount the camera body to the tripod seems to me to put a lot of strain on the mount, so I like being able to mount it to the foot now instead.
I’ve only just bought the rf 100-500 so the price doesn’t bother me too much but I will have to wait a while before I get it, but saying that as a car photographer having those 2 lenses would be all I need and would give me 24-500 which is perfect, will definitely get a prime lens though for car events where I need to be on the move a lot and don’t need up to 105
Blah, Blah, Blah! Let the haters hate on the price and size of this lens! I preordered mine from Adorama and received it on 12/16/2023. I sold my RF 24-70 f2.8 for $1,450 before the price dropped. Adorama has a 12 month interest free Credit Card if you pay in full in a year. I applied the $1,450 towards the RF 24-105 f2.8 I slapped it on my R6 mkII and away I went I booked 3 last minute Christmas/Holiday Parties and cleared more than the $3,000 price tag of the Lens thanks to some generous tips from "Slightly Intoxicated' Partygoers!" I'm still learning the video on the R6 mkII but The Still Shots were Stellar. I can only imagine how they are with The R5 and beyond. Yes it's massive and heavy but I captured some solid low light Christmas House decorations.
I carry RF 28-70 f2 at the weddings for the past 2 years now, it’s about same weight. And I weigh 165lbs. :))) I don’t have problem with weight of the lens at all, I should be fine with 24-105 :))
@@JoshBirman And my R6 has battery grip as well 🤣 Every person that take my camera, think I am crazy to carry that weight all day at the wedding. It took me about couple of weddings to get used to the weight.
@@JoshBirman I am shooting photo only, so I have to hand hold it all day and on the Peak Design strap. It’s heavy, but I got used to it, it’s the most versatile set up I ever had. I shoot about 80% of the pictures with that lens.
For me the best all-around is to shoot most events with my two Canon R3 cameras with a 24-70 mm 2.8 on one and a 70 - 200 mm 2.8 on the other. Both are EF lenses with RF adapters. I alerady have what I need without spending $3,000 to get 35 more mm on the 24-70 for 105mm. I do have the RF 24-105mm 4.0, and it's perfect. Need more bokeh-get closer on the zoom. Better yet, Adobe Camera Raw has an excellent AI blur if MORE bokey is needed, or just Photoshop the image. Now for video, this is an interesting lens with the zooming add-on adapter, if you goals are to shoot cooler videos.
it‘s obvious that canon took video recording performance into consideration when they are designing this lens.a fixed lens is easier to be used on a stabilizer.
Great video.. thank you! I am a newbie and love wildlife photography.. I have a couple of safaris planned out.. and often go to Montana to take photos.. I am considering selling my RF14-35 F4 and 24-105 F4 to get the 24-105 f2/8... do you think it is a good move? I own the RF 100-500 F4 for long range.. but I feel that for most part the 24-105 f/28 can do everything my other two lenses can do.. I dont mind the size...Just hesitating about what to do.. so any input would be very much appreciated.
I guess it depends whether or not you use the 14-35. Cause if you need the 14-23 focal lengths you kinda have to keep that lens. The 24-105 won’t touch those. I think the only reason I would sell those 2 lens would be if I basically never used the 14-35 and really wanted a 2.8 aperture. Otherwise I’d just stick to what you’ve got now.
@@JoshBirman thing is, that starts at f2. Also wider lenses are better for landscape and vlogging. In vlogging this lense is too heavy In landscape you stop down anyway Also that lense covers the 135mm portraits I think that one should get the crown for the best lense.
@@-MrEVIL- Canon lens is the best in all respects Especially in sharpness and color science Also, the Canon lens has an optical Image stabilizer with 11 blades and faster Auto Focus Zero to minimal cromatic operation Almost no breathing
@@-MrEVIL- Canon lens is the best in all respects Especially in sharpness and color science Also, the Canon lens has an optical Image stabilizer with 11 blades and faster Auto Focus Zero to minimal cromatic operation Almost no breathing
@@-MrEVIL- Canon lens is the best in all respects Especially in sharpness and color science Also, the Canon lens has an optical Image stabilizer with 11 blades and faster Auto Focus Zero to minimal cromatic operation Almost no breathing
@@JoshBirman Canon is shooting itself on the foot and d...k with such ridiculously inflated price, no wonder why so many people jumped to Sony for more affordable yet capable glass.
Canon should change a lot of things, starting from their designs, their cameras and lenses just look old and ugly black plastic, how come a 2023 camera and lens looks exactly like a camera from 12 years ago. You see Sony's design its sharp with corners and modern and then you see Canon and it's round and looks cheap.
It definitely isn't the best, even only as selected in zoom category, there are more interesting lenses already out, e.g. 28-70 f/2 is better in almost every regard, especially now, when all relevant bodies are stabilized. Don't get me wrong, RF 24-105mm f/2.8 IS is indeed incredible lens, but only for pretty narrow audience and that demand breather range coverage.
I disagree. I feel the only advantage the 28-70 has is f2. Apart from that this 24-105 is literally better. I feel like most videographers and photographers especially find that 70mm isn't enough for portraits or events. At the pretty much exact same weight, same price, and only being .8 wider aperture I don't see why you would choose the 28-70 over the 105.
@@jacobbatterhamas a owner ov 28-70 i agree on most of what you said. But .8 aputure in this case is one Full stop so double the light. Instead of shooting at iso 6400 you can shoot with same shutter speed at iso 3200 and that’s a lot of light. Especially most of people using these lenses for both video and photo will not go below 1/100 shutter speed (ok video 1/50) but for photography in that case you lose the advantage of IS.
The 28-70 is incredible!! And having an f/2 aperture is amazing. But for weddings I think I’d take the 24-105. Greater focal range, image stabilization, lighter weight, slightly cheaper. At least for me it’s totally worth giving up that stop of light.
@@TomislavMoze Yeah it does make sense it definitely can be worth it for some people. It would be interesting to do a poll and witch people would chose. I feel like most people including me would take the extra focal length, Image stabilisation, cheaper price over that stop of light. I could be completely wrong though.
No this is not the best lens ever made. Leica and Zeiss Cinema Prime lenses eat all Canon lenses for breakfast and poop out gold nuggets. But starting at $30,000 for a Leica cine lens you get what you pay for. This Canon lens WILL have too many elements and have zero dimensionality and a 2D rendering, if the rest of the RF lens lineup is anything to go by. If you want 3D pop, you've got to use Sony GM and Sony Zeiss lenses. Canon L lenses aren't what they used to be. Professional photographers use primes, and poofressionral foto-graffers use zooms. Sonny I could tell you who makes the best lens for 35mm full frame, and it ain't Canon. But you're more interested in making a click-baity titled video rather than what is true and what is not true. That this lens will be medicore at best, but the sponsored Canon foto-graffers like yourself will build up a mystique about this lens and hype it up for the shmucks out here to buy and swoon over all that 2 dimensional imagery.
I rented the 28-70 f. 2.0 and as soon as i put it on the camera I wrapped it back up and put it back in the box becuase of the size and weight. If you shoot any event or travel you know size and weight is more important than anything.
It’s definitely a beefy lens 😄 I have rocked an EF 70-200 all day before and it’s not terrible. And plenty of photographers do that for every wedding. Not ideal by any means, but I don’t know if I would be so quick to write it off just because of the weight.
@@presise1620 I just shot a 3 1/2 hour event with an R5, 28-70 and an on-camera flash, battery grip, and it didn’t leave my hand and shoulder the entire time. Literally didn’t even notice the weight. I’m not exactly sure what some of you complain about the weight of that lens. Have you never shot with the 70-200? Same weight, maybe more.
If you have back and arm problems after only half an hour, you need to implement a better diet by eating less inflammatory foods. I'm probably half your weight and older than you and I don't even work out and I do 4+hour events walking around with my 28-70 (holding it not even on a strap). When I hand it off to someone to hold for a quick second so I can grab a business card, they are like "woah" this is heavy. But yet for me it's no problem. The only "tired" I feel is emotional because I'm an introvert and crowds can be overwhelming.
They already make a smaller version man... it's the 24-105 f4. It's not possible to get that f/2.8 aputure and all the other features in a smaller package. The fact they got everything in it thats there now is borderline miraculous.
It is possible, Tamron did it! I still have the Tamron 28-105 f/2.8 EF mount lens I bought 20 years ago. It's just under 6 inches long at 28 mm but the barrel extends out as you zoom. With the go-gillion megapixels now, it's not tack sharp like you would need with today's cameras. But on my original Canon EOS 5D, it never left my camera!
One of the reasons I bought it was because it has the foot I personally like using the foot as a platform to hold it on when I’m running around shooting video or photography. Especially when I’m shooting video because I have the 28 to 70 and the 85 f/1.2 and since they don’t have any lens support to mount the camera body to the tripod seems to me to put a lot of strain on the mount, so I like being able to mount it to the foot now instead.
Love the innovation that went into this lens! Reminds me of the Canon 135 just on steroids haha Great vid Josh!
Thanks man! Loved seeing your perspective as well 😊
I’ve only just bought the rf 100-500 so the price doesn’t bother me too much but I will have to wait a while before I get it, but saying that as a car photographer having those 2 lenses would be all I need and would give me 24-500 which is perfect, will definitely get a prime lens though for car events where I need to be on the move a lot and don’t need up to 105
Man, you are so incredibly likeable. Please keep this up!
Thank you so much!! 🥹 You’re making my day!
I love this comment ❤️
Blah, Blah, Blah! Let the haters hate on the price and size of this lens! I preordered mine from Adorama and received it on 12/16/2023. I sold my RF 24-70 f2.8 for $1,450 before the price dropped. Adorama has a 12 month interest free Credit Card if you pay in full in a year. I applied the $1,450 towards the RF 24-105 f2.8 I slapped it on my R6 mkII and away I went
I booked 3 last minute Christmas/Holiday Parties and cleared more than the $3,000 price tag of the Lens thanks to some generous tips from "Slightly Intoxicated' Partygoers!" I'm still learning the video on the R6 mkII but The Still Shots were Stellar. I can only imagine how they are with The R5 and beyond. Yes it's massive and heavy but I captured some solid low light Christmas House decorations.
Believe me those complaining are mostly sony fanboys by bringing up names like Tamron , sigma and sony itself hahaha
INTRO WAS FIRE.
Thanks dude!! I’m so proud of that one! Major credit to CVP though for all the footage.
‘Is this the best lens of all time?’ that is a meaningless title there are so many factors involved.
You clicked on the video and commented though, so I guess it wasn’t meaningless at all.
This lens is incredible! It means I can attend a wedding with only one lens !!
Although most would still bring at least two lenses and two bodies to a wedding.
After working with 28-70 ill never get another heavy lens, was pretty exited but will stick with f 4 version
Haha! Fair enough 😄
I carry RF 28-70 f2 at the weddings for the past 2 years now, it’s about same weight. And I weigh 165lbs. :))) I don’t have problem with weight of the lens at all, I should be fine with 24-105 :))
Sweet!! I may have to workout a bit more 😄 My back hasn’t been liking me lately and I don’t even have this lens yet 😂
@@JoshBirman And my R6 has battery grip as well 🤣 Every person that take my camera, think I am crazy to carry that weight all day at the wedding. It took me about couple of weddings to get used to the weight.
Dang! That’s a heavy setup! Are you shooting photo or video?
@@JoshBirman I am shooting photo only, so I have to hand hold it all day and on the Peak Design strap. It’s heavy, but I got used to it, it’s the most versatile set up I ever had. I shoot about 80% of the pictures with that lens.
@@JoshBirmancan this lens be used on a gimbal?
For me the best all-around is to shoot most events with my two Canon R3 cameras with a 24-70 mm 2.8 on one and a 70 - 200 mm 2.8 on the other. Both are EF lenses with RF adapters. I alerady have what I need without spending $3,000 to get 35 more mm on the 24-70 for 105mm. I do have the RF 24-105mm 4.0, and it's perfect. Need more bokeh-get closer on the zoom. Better yet, Adobe Camera Raw has an excellent AI blur if MORE bokey is needed, or just Photoshop the image. Now for video, this is an interesting lens with the zooming add-on adapter, if you goals are to shoot cooler videos.
A good 24-70 / 70-200 setup is gold! If it was easier to “dual wield” with video I would totally start doing that.
it‘s obvious that canon took video recording performance into consideration when they are designing this lens.a fixed lens is easier to be used on a stabilizer.
Indeed! Although this would be a heck of a lens to put on a gimbal 😄
I have one. Bad ass!! I'm a fan. My go-to lens going forward. I also have a RF15-35 and RF24-70. Covered. I also have C70's and an R5c.
That’s awesome!! How’s the weight with a C70?
@@JoshBirman It is heavy. I always shoot with a comfortable strap and a SmallRig chest pad. It's not that bad.
Great video.. thank you! I am a newbie and love wildlife photography.. I have a couple of safaris planned out.. and often go to Montana to take photos.. I am considering selling my RF14-35 F4 and 24-105 F4 to get the 24-105 f2/8... do you think it is a good move? I own the RF 100-500 F4 for long range.. but I feel that for most part the 24-105 f/28 can do everything my other two lenses can do.. I dont mind the size...Just hesitating about what to do.. so any input would be very much appreciated.
I guess it depends whether or not you use the 14-35. Cause if you need the 14-23 focal lengths you kinda have to keep that lens. The 24-105 won’t touch those. I think the only reason I would sell those 2 lens would be if I basically never used the 14-35 and really wanted a 2.8 aperture. Otherwise I’d just stick to what you’ve got now.
Nice zoomie but a bit too dark... 2.8. If they made one a bit faster, with an aperture < 2.0, I would consider it. This is why people use primes.
An f/2 version would be crazy! I’m good with an f/2.8 though. 24-70 and 70-200 are both f/2.8 and I’ve been very happy with those for years.
@@JoshBirman - Thanks for responding.
Good!
Its not gonna be the best lense of all time with the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 around.
That’s a spectacular lens! No doubt. I think it’s a bit of a toss up between those two for which is the most useful.
@@JoshBirman thing is, that starts at f2.
Also wider lenses are better for landscape and vlogging.
In vlogging this lense is too heavy
In landscape you stop down anyway
Also that lense covers the 135mm portraits
I think that one should get the crown for the best lense.
@@-MrEVIL-
Canon lens is the best in all respects
Especially in sharpness and color science
Also, the Canon lens has an optical Image stabilizer with 11 blades and faster Auto Focus
Zero to minimal cromatic operation
Almost no breathing
@@-MrEVIL-
Canon lens is the best in all respects
Especially in sharpness and color science
Also, the Canon lens has an optical Image stabilizer with 11 blades and faster Auto Focus
Zero to minimal cromatic operation
Almost no breathing
@@-MrEVIL-
Canon lens is the best in all respects
Especially in sharpness and color science
Also, the Canon lens has an optical Image stabilizer with 11 blades and faster Auto Focus
Zero to minimal cromatic operation
Almost no breathing
Tamron and Samyang have a 35-150 2/2.8 for a while... On Sony. 😄
Yup, for half the price.
I hope Tamron is able to release that lens for Canon RF at some point! It looks SO nice.
@@JoshBirman Canon is shooting itself on the foot and d...k with such ridiculously inflated price, no wonder why so many people jumped to Sony for more affordable yet capable glass.
Yeah, you definitely pay a premium for Canon bodies and glass.
@@jaegerschtulmann Indeed, E-mount camera and lenses are being sold and rented several times more than Canon's.
I would pay even 5k if that lens would be twice shorter)
Same!
There should be pictures and not just talk.
Pictures of what? I included quite a few clips from CVP’s video and from Canon’s videos.
Rent it before you decide to buy it.
Nah the tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 beats it to the punch and it's way cheaper (and apparently smaller too)
Canon should change a lot of things, starting from their designs, their cameras and lenses just look old and ugly black plastic, how come a 2023 camera and lens looks exactly like a camera from 12 years ago. You see Sony's design its sharp with corners and modern and then you see Canon and it's round and looks cheap.
It’s certainly not the best lens of all time when it’s priced at $4000 I can buy an entire camera for that
Just wait until you hear about Arri Signature Primes or Cooke lenses.
No, it isnt. I shoot with my RF 85mm F1.2,a lot, and this f2.8 lens is not going to look nowhere near as nice as as a f1.2 lens.
It's all about flexibility though... dont tell me u want to shoot a group shot with 85mm
It definitely isn't the best, even only as selected in zoom category, there are more interesting lenses already out, e.g. 28-70 f/2 is better in almost every regard, especially now, when all relevant bodies are stabilized.
Don't get me wrong, RF 24-105mm f/2.8 IS is indeed incredible lens, but only for pretty narrow audience and that demand breather range coverage.
I disagree. I feel the only advantage the 28-70 has is f2. Apart from that this 24-105 is literally better. I feel like most videographers and photographers especially find that 70mm isn't enough for portraits or events. At the pretty much exact same weight, same price, and only being .8 wider aperture I don't see why you would choose the 28-70 over the 105.
@@jacobbatterhamas a owner ov 28-70 i agree on most of what you said. But .8 aputure in this case is one Full stop so double the light. Instead of shooting at iso 6400 you can shoot with same shutter speed at iso 3200 and that’s a lot of light. Especially most of people using these lenses for both video and photo will not go below 1/100 shutter speed (ok video 1/50) but for photography in that case you lose the advantage of IS.
The 28-70 is incredible!! And having an f/2 aperture is amazing. But for weddings I think I’d take the 24-105. Greater focal range, image stabilization, lighter weight, slightly cheaper. At least for me it’s totally worth giving up that stop of light.
@@TomislavMoze Yeah it does make sense it definitely can be worth it for some people. It would be interesting to do a poll and witch people would chose. I feel like most people including me would take the extra focal length, Image stabilisation, cheaper price over that stop of light. I could be completely wrong though.
No this is not the best lens ever made. Leica and Zeiss Cinema Prime lenses eat all Canon lenses for breakfast and poop out gold nuggets. But starting at $30,000 for a Leica cine lens you get what you pay for. This Canon lens WILL have too many elements and have zero dimensionality and a 2D rendering, if the rest of the RF lens lineup is anything to go by. If you want 3D pop, you've got to use Sony GM and Sony Zeiss lenses. Canon L lenses aren't what they used to be.
Professional photographers use primes, and poofressionral foto-graffers use zooms.
Sonny I could tell you who makes the best lens for 35mm full frame, and it ain't Canon.
But you're more interested in making a click-baity titled video rather than what is true and what is not true. That this lens will be medicore at best, but the sponsored Canon foto-graffers like yourself will build up a mystique about this lens and hype it up for the shmucks out here to buy and swoon over all that 2 dimensional imagery.
“Poofressional foto-graffers” 😂😂 I’m putting that on my business card!
I have 2 words for you "size" and "weight." If you use it for more than 20 minutes you will have back and arm problems. Not a walk around lens.
I rented the 28-70 f. 2.0 and as soon as i put it on the camera I wrapped it back up and put it back in the box becuase of the size and weight. If you shoot any event or travel you know size and weight is more important than anything.
It’s definitely a beefy lens 😄 I have rocked an EF 70-200 all day before and it’s not terrible. And plenty of photographers do that for every wedding. Not ideal by any means, but I don’t know if I would be so quick to write it off just because of the weight.
@@presise1620 I just shot a 3 1/2 hour event with an R5, 28-70 and an on-camera flash, battery grip, and it didn’t leave my hand and shoulder the entire time. Literally didn’t even notice the weight. I’m not exactly sure what some of you complain about the weight of that lens. Have you never shot with the 70-200? Same weight, maybe more.
If you have back and arm problems after only half an hour, you need to implement a better diet by eating less inflammatory foods. I'm probably half your weight and older than you and I don't even work out and I do 4+hour events walking around with my 28-70 (holding it not even on a strap). When I hand it off to someone to hold for a quick second so I can grab a business card, they are like "woah" this is heavy. But yet for me it's no problem. The only "tired" I feel is emotional because I'm an introvert and crowds can be overwhelming.
Nope. Size, weight $$$$$$$. Come on now canon. So if I want an R5 and this ONE lens I'm spending almost $7000. No thanks