Canon 24-105 f/2.8 IS powerzoom

ahalpert

ahalpert

Major Contributor
Canon's done it. The lens everyone always asked for. 24-105 f/2.8 with IS. $3k, 3lbs

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1793385-REG/canon_rf_24_105mm_f_2_8_l.html/accessories

And it looks like for another $1k they'll sell you a strap-on zoom servo. It looks like the unit has a dial on it to control zoom speed. (I assume that means that the T/W buttons on it are unresponsive to pressure.) But maybe if you use a zoom rocker on your camera you can get variable speed from variable pressure, I don't know.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1793995-REG/canon_6348c002_power_zoom_adapter_pz_e2.html

While I'm sure it has its drawbacks, it's a bold offering at this price point and sure to sell like hot cakes. Kudos to Canon.
 
The servo unit looks very similar to the unit that comes attached to the 18-80mm. Same buttons, profile, and 20pin connector
 
What’s amazing is that it has taken them this long to finally make it. People have been asking for this for years(at least since the original f/4 version). And they’ve been making a 30-105 T2.8 cine lens for like a decade.
 
Last edited:
It wasnt going to happen before a thin (rf) mount. Nice.

value over the 24-104 f4 - im mulling that.

ff f4 is thin dof. At 6400 do you need 2.8

i dunno.

but good work canon
 
Glad to see Canon innovating. While the 24-105 is a very useful range, I do not see the huge draw for a servo with such a limited ~3x zoom. For $4,000 you could get a nice video camera with a 22x zoom lens attached. I am sure it has its industry uses, but FF for sporting or event work just seems like a mismatch. Cinema use is kind of all that is left but zooming is not cool in that world.
 
ahalpert said:
Canon's done it. The lens everyone always asked for. 24-105 f/2.8 with IS. $3k, 3lbs
Click to expand...

Not me Abe. If it has servo capability as stock or optional the lens would need to be parfocal while zooming, otherwise the power servo IMHO is totally superfluous on this lens. Zooming while rolling is usually only done in live sporting and entertainment events where you are framing and chasing fast moving action. In those cases, you generally need a zoom range in the order of 18-22 x reach. That's an ENG style lens with an aperture of F/1.8 generally. For me, a very short range zoom that's costing in the order of $4K plus that isn't parfocal would be out of the question. Looking at the zoom servo rocker on the side of the grip makes me think its ergonomics are not really suited to fast zoom use. A long way from a must-have lens for my style of work.

Again, I really don't get this whole F/2.8 thing being a "must-have" when an F/4.0 lens at 105 mm gives you the same DOF as a 70 mm at F/2.8. You only have to move back a further 20 inches. As for being necessary for low light to have F/2.8 that argument has been overcome with many modern very quiet cameras where you just need to bump your ISO one stop to compensate. Plus, most F/4.0 l05 mm lenses have OIS of some description. Sony's now aging Sony FE PZ 28-135mm f/4 G OSS lens will do most things this Canon will for around $2.5K, bar the F2/2.8. Sorry, not exciting me for that sort of money and probable performance.

Half a meter difference for same DOF 70 mm F/2.8 vs 105 mm F/4.0

70 mm f2.8 @ 2.0 meters DOF = .13 meter
105mm f4.0 @ 2.5 meters DOF = .13 meter

Chris Young

https://www.omnicalculator.com/other/depth-of-field
 
Bassman2003 said:
Glad to see Canon innovating. While the 24-105 is a very useful range, I do not see the huge draw for a servo with such a limited ~3x zoom. For $4,000 you could get a nice video camera with a 22x zoom lens attached. I am sure it has its industry uses, but FF for sporting or event work just seems like a mismatch. Cinema use is kind of all that is left but zooming is not cool in that world.
Click to expand...

Remember how much Canon is used in the doc world, though.
 
For servo work, this would be useful for cheap reality work for those who don’t want to pay for the 15-120mm. Or don’t buy the servo and use it for corporate.
 
Was I beamed into the mirror universe while I was asleep? For as long as I've been buying (stills) lenses, the great debate was always 24-70 f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4. 105mm was unquestionably more useful reach. But f/2.8 was unquestionably more useful in low-light situations or shallower DOF (at the same focal length, of course). The first lens I bought was the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 v1, and partly what settled the question for me was that 24-70's tend to have better optical quality.

So, the idea that you can have your cake and eat it too and all it will cost you is an extra lb or 2 of lens is a pretty sweet deal... I don't know how the optics are, I haven't looked closely at the lens.

And so many Sony shooters complain about the lack of a good midrange zoom for Sony that has IS.

I see the servo as an extra. This is a stills lens, priced for stills. The servo could be useful. Yes, if the lens is not parfocal (and I haven't seem anyone claiming that it is), then that puts a damper on things. I had hoped when I moved into the Sony system with autofocus that the autofocus might refocus non-parfocal zoom lenses as they zoomed, but that turned out not to be the case. I don't know how it is on Canon.
 
Maybe it's time for someone to straighten me out if I am wrong about this, but I have had the understanding that all lenses that are rear element electronic servo focus are inherently not parfocal, and require running the electronic back-focus calibration routine with the star chart (as with eng cams) in order to obtain parfocal behavior. And that if you don't have this, such as with a front focus direct mechanical linkage, you use shims to calibrate focus at infinity and parfocal-ness.

If a mirrorless camera without a back-focus routine and target is what's discussed here, how do you guarantee parfocal performance across the zoom range?

Well, if a mirrorless camera is using CAF it should be able to hold focus on a subject as you zoom, right? Should we agree if that's possible, it still does not make a lens itself parfocal inherently? Or are we counting parfocal inherentness to include phase detect and contrast detect closed loop systems?

To finish up this point, can a lens be considered parfocal across the zoom range if you have to be using CAF to achieve it? Because if you were manual focusing and turn the zoom ring, it seems parfocal behavior would not be assured.
 
ahalpert said:
Was I beamed into the mirror universe while I was asleep? For as long as I've been buying (stills) lenses, the great debate was always 24-70 f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4. 105mm was unquestionably more useful reach. But f/2.8 was unquestionably more useful in low-light situations or shallower DOF (at the same focal length, of course). The first lens I bought was the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 v1, and partly what settled the question for me was that 24-70's tend to have better optical quality.

So, the idea that you can have your cake and eat it too and all it will cost you is an extra lb or 2 of lens is a pretty sweet deal... I don't know how the optics are, I haven't looked closely at the lens.

And so many Sony shooters complain about the lack of a good midrange zoom for Sony that has IS.

I see the servo as an extra. This is a stills lens, priced for stills. The servo could be useful. Yes, if the lens is not parfocal (and I haven't seem anyone claiming that it is), then that puts a damper on things. I had hoped when I moved into the Sony system with autofocus that the autofocus might refocus non-parfocal zoom lenses as they zoomed, but that turned out not to be the case. I don't know how it is on Canon.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree Abe. I would’ve thought pretty much everyone would be stoked for this lens. As a Sony shooter, I would kill for something just like this for all the reasons you explained. I’m shocked that people aren’t excited about it.
 
Tom Roper said:
Maybe it's time for someone to straighten me out if I am wrong about this, but I have had the understanding that all lenses that are rear element electronic servo focus are inherently not parfocal, and require running the electronic back-focus calibration routine with the star chart (as with eng cams) in order to obtain parfocal behavior.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I haven't heard this before. But addressing the next point:

Well, if a mirrorless camera is using CAF it should be able to hold focus on a subject as you zoom, right? Should we agree if that's possible, it still does not make a lens itself parfocal inherently? Or are we counting parfocal inherentness to include phase detect and contrast detect closed loop systems?

To finish up this point, can a lens be considered parfocal across the zoom range if you have to be using CAF to achieve it? Because if you were manual focusing and turn the zoom ring, it seems parfocal behavior would not be assured.
Click to expand...

I have observed the behavior of my Sony mirrorless cameras to be that autofocus is not engaged while you are zooming. It seems like it doesn't do anything until you stop zooming. Maybe I'm wrong, but when I first bought the system and tested it out that seemed to be how it worked. This could probably change via firmware but I don't think it has.

That being said, I think there are Sony AF lenses that are parfocal or nearly parfocal even when used with AF disengaged.
 
I would assume that this lens would be “parfocal” when in af mode.
or programmed to work as such

af and computer fiddling is si good now

purists may feel a 2/3 zoom is better with glass parfocality.

they may not be wrong

for me manual focus is for art projects now
 
Tom Roper said:
Maybe it's time for someone to straighten me out if I am wrong about this, but I have had the understanding that all lenses that are rear element electronic servo focus are inherently not parfocal, and require running the electronic back-focus calibration routine with the star chart (as with eng cams) in order to obtain parfocal behavior. And that if you don't have this, such as with a front focus direct mechanical linkage, you use shims to calibrate focus at infinity and parfocal-ness.

If a mirrorless camera without a back-focus routine and target is what's discussed here, how do you guarantee parfocal performance across the zoom range?

Well, if a mirrorless camera is using CAF it should be able to hold focus on a subject as you zoom, right? Should we agree if that's possible, it still does not make a lens itself parfocal inherently? Or are we counting parfocal inherentness to include phase detect and contrast detect closed loop systems?

To finish up this point, can a lens be considered parfocal across the zoom range if you have to be using CAF to achieve it? Because if you were manual focusing and turn the zoom ring, it seems parfocal behavior would not be assured.
Click to expand...

How I understand it, Tom, is as follows. Starting with the EX series cameras and going all the way through to all the Sony lenses that have power servos there is a circuit that applies focus correction while actually zooming in both AF and Manual focusing modes. This technology was also applied to the interchangeable 16 x servo zoom lenses that were made for the 1/2" EX3 and the PMW-300. Also, this electronic circuit was applied to the 2/3" variant of these 16 x kit lenses for the PMW350. That's why with those cameras and with those lenses you can be in MF mode, zoom in, focus and then zoom back and hold focus as you zoom. So, not "true" optical parfocal performance. They are optically close to parfocal, but need that electronic focus assistance while zooming. Some of the later lenses in the E-Mount series that have servo zoom and that use this electronic focus assistance in both M and AF mode are the SELP 18-200 mm, the 18-105 mm, the 18-110 mm and in FF the 28-135 mm. Though if you manually crash zoom with these lenses, like you can with the 18-110 as it has a mechanically coupled zoom like an ENG lens, and then pixel peep your footage you will see it go out of focus through the crash, though that lack of focus is mainly hidden by the motion blur during the image size change.

Conversely, with the non-servo photo lenses that make no claim to parfocal performance, I find some of those lenses when zoomed at a moderate speed can stay in focus if the camera has a good fast AF system. Like the current crop of A7/9 series cameras.

A pretty decent explanation of how the zooming/focusing action works together is fairly well covered and demonstrated in Matt Porwell's AbelCine test of the 18-110 mm, video below. This lens is what covers most of my boring corporate S35 work. Not exciting in the artistic sense, but years on, it just keeps delivering in spades. I totally agree with Porwell's conclusion.

Chris Young.

[video]https://www.abelcine.com/articles/blog-and-knowledge/tutorials-and-guides/behind-the-lens-sony-e-pz-18-110mm-zoom[/video]
 
Great lens. I have the 18-80 and 17-120 and use the 18-80 a lot more due to the smaller size, weight, auto-focus, IS, no need for lens support so less rigging and quicker to change lenses, so this lens giving the faster f-stop will be useful as the T/4.4 of the 18-80 can be limiting at times. The 18-80 is more useful on S35 but the 24-105 becomes about a 15-65mm on full frame, so a bit wider with a bit less reach. The Canon 15-250 which has a teleconverter to allow for full frame coverage still has a much larger zoom range, but this lens will still be useful due to being smaller, lighting, good auto-focus, IS, and a lot cheaper. Also, if working on a camera that has a quick S35 to Full Frame mode switch, you could then have a 15-105 equivalent lens which would be a more useful range.

Canon also just came out with that firmware update to do 1.5x to 3x digital converter. I'm not sure how that works in terms of resolution since I believe the current C-series are mostly 4K sensors, so at 3x you would not be getting a 4K or perhaps even 1080 image anymore, I'd assume. But if the next C-series generation is 8K, then a 2x crop would be 4K (I think?), which would enable a 15-130 range with the cropping feature while still delivering 4K, or 15-260 (close to the Canon 15-250 lens) if doing 1080.


What I see missing from this lens is a rosette on the motor in order to attach the servo handle, which is very useful for being able to holder the camera and lens by the servo handle for shoulder mount work. The 18-80 of course has the rosette on it to attach the servo grip, so I don't know why they would not include it. I do sometimes attach the servo handle to my shape handle extensions on my rig, but more often I keep it mounted directly to the lens.

A work around I'm thinking of involves swinging the lens mount base horizontally to the side of the lens, attaching a nato rail to it (I see two screw holes on the bottom), attaching a nato to rosette adapter, and then attaching the servo handle to that. The nato rail would allow to move the handle forward and backwards for as long as the nato rail is. I'm not sure if the lens support going horizontally would have proper clearance with the lens motor attachment on, but it looks like there is a good chance it would have clearance. If anyone gets there hands on one let us know if it has clearance.

Otherwise, the screws used to attach the motor to the lens could perhaps be jerry-rigged into attaching a rosette, but it may be a bit complicated, and those screws look a bit small so I'm not sure if they would be good for handling the tension of supporting the camera that way.
 
Last edited:
Canon has been programming their focus by wire STM and Micro USM lenses to maintain focus while zooming. I think they are just mapping the focus drift and correcting for it using the AF motor as the lens is zoomed. It can't quite keep up with crash zooms, but I guess you could just consider it a feature that is meant to mimic the look of the crash zoom/focus adjustment shots used in all of the cooking shows that my wife watches.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Great lens. I have the 18-80 and 17-120 and use the 18-80 a lot more due to the smaller size, weight, auto-focus, IS, no need for lens support so less rigging and quicker to change lenses, so this lens giving the faster f-stop will be useful as the T/4.4 of the 18-80 can be limiting at times. The 18-80 is more useful on S35 but the 24-105 becomes about a 15-65mm on full frame, so a bit wider with a bit less reach. The Canon 15-250 which has a teleconverter to allow for full frame coverage still has a much larger zoom range, but this lens will still be useful due to being smaller, lighting, good auto-focus, IS, and a lot cheaper. Also, if working on a camera that has a quick S35 to Full Frame mode switch, you could then have a 15-105 equivalent lens which would be a more useful range.

Canon also just came out with that firmware update to do 1.5x to 3x digital converter. I'm not sure how that works in terms of resolution since I believe the current C-series are mostly 4K sensors, so at 3x you would not be getting a 4K or perhaps even 1080 image anymore, I'd assume. But if the next C-series generation is 8K, then a 2x crop would be 4K (I think?), which would enable a 15-130 range with the cropping feature while still delivering 4K, or 15-260 (close to the Canon 15-250 lens) if doing 1080.


What I see missing from this lens is a rosette on the motor in order to attach the servo handle, which is very useful for being able to holder the camera and lens by the servo handle for shoulder mount work. The 18-80 of course has the rosette on it to attach the servo grip, so I don't know why they would not include it. I do sometimes attach the servo handle to my shape handle extensions on my rig, but more often I keep it mounted directly to the lens.

A work around I'm thinking of involves swinging the lens mount base horizontally to the side of the lens, attaching a nato rail to it (I see two screw holes on the bottom), attaching a nato to rosette adapter, and then attaching the servo handle to that. The nato rail would allow to move the handle forward and backwards for as long as the nato rail is. I'm not sure if the lens support going horizontally would have proper clearance with the lens motor attachment on, but it looks like there is a good chance it would have clearance. If anyone gets there hands on one let us know if it has clearance.

Otherwise, the screws used to attach the motor to the lens could perhaps be jerry-rigged into attaching a rosette, but it may be a bit complicated, and those screws look a bit small so I'm not sure if they would be good for handling the tension of supporting the camera that way.
Click to expand...

I loved the 18-80mm, but the depth of field was too wide for what most of my clients wanted for corporate work. When I switched over to full frame, I was really hoping that Canon would release a 24-105 T4.4 compact servo zoom for full frame. I wish this lens was in EF mount and not fully electronic, but the tradeoff that it is now an f/2.8 more than makes up for it.

The 1.5x teleconverter is basically taking the full frame 4K mode and switching to the S35 4K mode without having the camera actually having to switch modes. The rest of the teleconverter modes are pretty ugly. A 1.25X or fully adjustable teleconverter would have been more useful but would have required new programming. Interestingly, the programming exists in the XF705 and XF605 for their advanced zoom features, so it isn't like Canon doesn't know how to do it.

I always disliked having the servo grip attached to the lens because it would hit the rods when trying to take the lens off. But putting a servo grip on the adjustable lens foot would be a much better design and I hope Canon has that in the works.
 
cpreston said:
I always disliked having the servo grip attached to the lens because it would hit the rods when trying to take the lens off. But putting a servo grip on the adjustable lens foot would be a much better design and I hope Canon has that in the works.
Click to expand...
I had not thought of how mounting the servo grip to the lens foot would also enable quickly moving it out of the way in order to take the lens off without hitting the rails or baseplate, so that is nice. I have had that issue, but I still find it's quicker to remove the camera from my Zacuto VCT (say 20-30 seconds) plate when doing a lens change than it is to reposition the hand grip (say 1-3 minutes) whenever a lens change is made. I'd already mentioned a good method of how to attach the servo grip to the lens foot with a nato rail and nato to rosette adapter, so it's not like Canon would have to make something for that, as long as there is clearance for the lens foot to go horizontal when the motor is attached.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top