I'll have to dispute your assertion that you see "softer images" with EF glass because "it was never designed to work with the RF mount". You see softer images because it's an older lens that's not as sharp. The RF mount and protocol is built as a superset of EF. That means that RF is EF with a few additions. The adapter simply ads the flange distance needed that would normally be occupied by the mirror box. The lens communicates NATIVELY. It is not adapted in any way except physically. Another factor is the fact that RF lenses don't have to incorporate a rear focus into their design which makes their design simpler and allows larger elements at the rear. Personally, I have a large stable of Canon L EF glass and Sigma ART EF glass and I find them to be excellent on RF. In fact, they're better on RF than they were on EF thanks to the excellent focusing system which can confirm if it has hit or is slightly off. No more micro-adjustments! Is RF a hair better? Yes. It's not worth upgrading for, though at the expense that it takes. However, the advantage it has is NOT because of why you think.
Used this video to talk myself into upgrading to the RF like 6 months ago. All the points are valid but I do still regret the purchase. If I had sold the EF I think I’d feel less hoodwinked but I still have it. Every time I get the itch to make myself feel better about the purchase I mount it on the adaptor and in all my trying to make myself see a difference I just don’t. Doesn’t mean it isn’t there, just that I can’t see it. The RF is functionally better but in terms of image quality I see nothing between the two up to 400% magnification. Even after that when I think can see a slight difference I can’t tell which is which without looking at the info and neither could be considered better. Just my experience.
@@KaiCreativeI think the people who say that they see a difference aren’t lying, it’s just noticeable for the more artistic advanced photographers with many years of experience
Thanks for the video, very helpful. I am upgrading from Canon 5D MKII to EOS-R. I have a set of 3 of EF lenses. 16-35, 24-105 and 70-200 mm. So upgrading only 24-105 to RF mount still having 2 other lenses on EF mount - does not sounds for me reasonable. Upgrading all lenses will cost me additional 3K Euro. I believe there is a better performance EOS-R with RF lenses, but this could be just a progress, cause EF lens comes from 2005 and RF lens comes from 2019, almost 15 years of progress should be visible. But again - costs...
Did you end up upgrading? I have the EF 24-70 f4 L IS lens and looking to upgrade to the RF 24-105 f4 for landscapes only. Any thoughts on that? I use an R6 currently adapted. Thanks
@@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife no I have not. I recently find out that shooting with mirror (5Dmk2) vs mirrorless (EOS R) is very different. I am a bit disappointed with mirrorless camera. The reason is that when you shoot a sport events, you have to track/follow moving object. With 5D you always see object and it disappears for 1/800 seconds. With R it is away for much longer time, so I cannot follow object, because I cannot see it. Viewer is digital and it definitely a delay. From feeling I see object only 1/4 seconds and other 3/4 I do not see life object. So I am thinking to sell both and by last variable mirrored camera, like 5D MK4. R has certainly some positive moments, but this live view is killing me.
@@dmitryo6649 ok I think I understand your issue. Just know that with the R6 you should have no problem with sports. I track fast moving birds pretty easily with the R6. There is a little bit of a slow motion effect when shooting bursts but it’s really just a matter of getting used to it. The eye tracking is insane and you would be amazed your keepers. Good luck!
Thought I, buying L series set of Lenses with EF mount, but now it looks like it is grandpa lenses and I have to upgrade to RF mount. So this "investment in the future" was too short.
I liked the video very much, honest and to the point. But what I missed the direct reference to the premium autofocus performance in full RF mode (RF lens directly) meaning Autofocus is absolutely 1000x better with the lens. Even the kit lens (STM) could even outperform the EF L lens in this by miles. You however brushed against it, mentioning it; but to me it's the game changer (just like you) were used to use the converter ring with the EF 24-105 F4 L.
Nice comparison bro. Quality between the two was close in general terms & seemed fine. Guess it all depends on the level of work/project your working on. For capturing greater detail & quality for newer systems & technology, Canon's RF series will likely last for as long as the EF series has.
A comparison between the version II of the EF 24-105 and the RF 24-105 would have been more helpful. I owned two copies of the version I 24-105 and they were slow to focus and the AF did not always catch sharp focus. My version II has been one of my best lenses (even with an RF adapter) but I'm worried I'm missing something not having a native RF lens on my R3.
I own the adapter combo, seems fine to me, the biggest con ist the lens creep. Photo quality is certanly good no cliwnt or hobbyist should be concerned
I got the m50 with kit lens wish it was pretty decent but i got for it the kamlan 50mm f1.1 and commlite adapter with 24 105 wish i got for free from a friend
I’m a cannon user from Sony full frame, I’m currently using EE glass and I shoot a lot of live indoor gigs so I’ve yet to see any difference, I purchased the Cannon R6
Thanks for your review. It would be naive thinking that EF lens producing same image quality as RF lens on native R body camera. Multiple tests confirmed that EF lens on R body camera are softer and producing lower image quality than RF version. So, it's in par with secondary market seeing flood of EF lenses selling chipper and chipper every day and also confirming by your review.
I think if you get the EF version and the Canon speedboaster. You will get an extra light from F4 down to F2.8 and that is fantastic not to mention you will get 17mm-85mm which is way better wide than 24mm 😎😎😎
Very true, even with viltrox speed booster, I get f2.8 . And with much larger angle. I can literally shoot 4k on my canon m50 now. At first, it was almost impossible with the massive crop in 4k. Now it's almost like a standard 4k with very little crop.
Why is Canon starting to price gouge their loyal customer base on the majority of their EF L glass? I don't see similar increases on Sony's GM glass. Nor does Nikon appear to be price gouging on its premium glass.
hello kai! I'm thinking about purchasing a lens for product photography. I've been using my 50 1.8 on my 6D and I'm looking for a more versatile lens. would you recommend the mk1 or mk2 24-105?
Yes, some are 2 in 1, i.e adapters and speed boosters. I have viltrox adapter and viltrox speed booster. I got The speed booster for $200 and it helps me mount many EF lenses, decreases the 4k crop on my canon m50, increases the f4 aperture on this lens to f2.8 which a game changer. It also makes the aperture adjustable from f2.8 to f8. Ordinary adapter can't do all the above except to mount EF lenses.
I just got my rf 24-105 f4 L today. Can’t Wait to go travelling to Test it out. I actually didn’t even want it, didn’t know what I would use it for. Still bought it for 850€ looks brand new. Even if I don’t like it I can sell it probably for 950 because u can’t buy it anywehere.
Price difference wise...if you buy variable aperture RF 24-105mm for the amount of money that is left you can buy RF 85mm f/2 and RF 16mm f/2.8.Do you really think that red ring of power is worth it?RF 24-105mm is stm is a great lens though!
I don't consider the cost of the adapter in my decision making process since I got it free with the body. I was looking at the RF version when my IS on my EF version malfunctioned. However, I found a mint condition EF Mk. II for $500. I'd take the $600 savings and add it for a future lens purchase, probably an UWA lens. It's difficult to choose between the 14-35 F4 and 15-35mm F2.8 since only $300 separate them, at least where I'm at.
How is the dust sealing on this particular RF lens? I've heard photographers having a nightmare with Tamron and Sigma's current 24-70 due to dust getting sucked in to the lens due to poor sealing on the extending lens barrel. To your knowledge, does the RF F4 24-105mm L have a filter between the extending barrel and the main barrel to prevent dust from getting sucked into the lens? Or in your extensive use of the lens, have you detected any issues with dust [long term use]?
Ahh we absolutely LOVED our mark 1 24-105 for our 6d, and lucky enough Wera's best friend had the same camera and mark 2 we were able to borrow. The lens creep was so bad on ours and sometimes the image quality was rather soft at times but it had a nice 'charm' to it and it was such a great workhorse of a lens to learn with. Having used the RF version a bit, have to say the RF lens is superior in every way but as long as money is no object. Can see in your side by side images that the RF is noticeably sharper but the EF still looks great. Awesome comparison mate!
I had the exact same set up when I upgraded from my 550D for weddings went to the 6D and man did it make a difference, but yeah for video it is pretty poor by today's standards, the RF lenses are razor sharp on the R5 and R6 so much so that we are talking about using Pro-mist filters to help reign in that corporate look (: Appreciate your insights and experience here too 😍😎
The 24-105 is the worst l series lens and i quickly sold mine. If you're a serious photographer then don't touch the 24 -105 RF or EF. Stick with the smaller zoom ranges
Should you upgrade your EF 24-105mm to the RF version if you are using a mirrorless Canon? Stay Tuned and Find out (:
So have you made a video on the above mentioned topic, yet? It's been almost a year. 😳😳
@@sonicvboom well you got to keep waiting for the answer
I'll have to dispute your assertion that you see "softer images" with EF glass because "it was never designed to work with the RF mount". You see softer images because it's an older lens that's not as sharp. The RF mount and protocol is built as a superset of EF. That means that RF is EF with a few additions. The adapter simply ads the flange distance needed that would normally be occupied by the mirror box. The lens communicates NATIVELY. It is not adapted in any way except physically. Another factor is the fact that RF lenses don't have to incorporate a rear focus into their design which makes their design simpler and allows larger elements at the rear.
Personally, I have a large stable of Canon L EF glass and Sigma ART EF glass and I find them to be excellent on RF. In fact, they're better on RF than they were on EF thanks to the excellent focusing system which can confirm if it has hit or is slightly off. No more micro-adjustments!
Is RF a hair better? Yes. It's not worth upgrading for, though at the expense that it takes.
However, the advantage it has is NOT because of why you think.
Used this video to talk myself into upgrading to the RF like 6 months ago. All the points are valid but I do still regret the purchase. If I had sold the EF I think I’d feel less hoodwinked but I still have it. Every time I get the itch to make myself feel better about the purchase I mount it on the adaptor and in all my trying to make myself see a difference I just don’t. Doesn’t mean it isn’t there, just that I can’t see it. The RF is functionally better but in terms of image quality I see nothing between the two up to 400% magnification. Even after that when I think can see a slight difference I can’t tell which is which without looking at the info and neither could be considered better. Just my experience.
Sooo interesting - some people don’t see a difference and others argue that there is a massive difference 🤔🤔
@blaineaburnettsr EF Mki or mkii?
Thank you so much for your comment! Because of that I made my decision to go with the EF II! Thanks again friend
@@KaiCreativeI think the people who say that they see a difference aren’t lying, it’s just noticeable for the more artistic advanced photographers with many years of experience
Thanks for the video, very helpful. I am upgrading from Canon 5D MKII to EOS-R. I have a set of 3 of EF lenses. 16-35, 24-105 and 70-200 mm. So upgrading only 24-105 to RF mount still having 2 other lenses on EF mount - does not sounds for me reasonable. Upgrading all lenses will cost me additional 3K Euro. I believe there is a better performance EOS-R with RF lenses, but this could be just a progress, cause EF lens comes from 2005 and RF lens comes from 2019, almost 15 years of progress should be visible. But again - costs...
Did you end up upgrading? I have the EF 24-70 f4 L IS lens and looking to upgrade to the RF 24-105 f4 for landscapes only. Any thoughts on that? I use an R6 currently adapted. Thanks
@@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife no I have not. I recently find out that shooting with mirror (5Dmk2) vs mirrorless (EOS R) is very different. I am a bit disappointed with mirrorless camera. The reason is that when you shoot a sport events, you have to track/follow moving object. With 5D you always see object and it disappears for 1/800 seconds. With R it is away for much longer time, so I cannot follow object, because I cannot see it. Viewer is digital and it definitely a delay. From feeling I see object only 1/4 seconds and other 3/4 I do not see life object. So I am thinking to sell both and by last variable mirrored camera, like 5D MK4. R has certainly some positive moments, but this live view is killing me.
@@dmitryo6649 ok I think I understand your issue. Just know that with the R6 you should have no problem with sports. I track fast moving birds pretty easily with the R6. There is a little bit of a slow motion effect when shooting bursts but it’s really just a matter of getting used to it. The eye tracking is insane and you would be amazed your keepers. Good luck!
The almost instant autofocus of the RF version is also something you should keep in mind when comparing the RF lens to the EF lens +RF mount adapter.
Good to know.
Do you recommend an adapter vs another one?
"Any investment in glass is an investment in the future" - THIS IS PERFECT! Thanks Mate 👏
Haha - glad you liked it Paul (:
Thought I, buying L series set of Lenses with EF mount, but now it looks like it is grandpa lenses and I have to upgrade to RF mount. So this "investment in the future" was too short.
5:30 Impressed that you managed with a 550D for wedding video production
Oh yeah! The 550D was such an Amazing Camera back in the day!
I can barely focus with my 650D😭😭😭
I liked the video very much, honest and to the point. But what I missed the direct reference to the premium autofocus performance in full RF mode (RF lens directly) meaning Autofocus is absolutely 1000x better with the lens. Even the kit lens (STM) could even outperform the EF L lens in this by miles. You however brushed against it, mentioning it; but to me it's the game changer (just like you) were used to use the converter ring with the EF 24-105 F4 L.
Nice comparison bro. Quality between the two was close in general terms & seemed fine. Guess it all depends on the level of work/project your working on. For capturing greater detail & quality for newer systems & technology, Canon's RF series will likely last for as long as the EF series has.
A comparison between the version II of the EF 24-105 and the RF 24-105 would have been more helpful. I owned two copies of the version I 24-105 and they were slow to focus and the AF did not always catch sharp focus. My version II has been one of my best lenses (even with an RF adapter) but I'm worried I'm missing something not having a native RF lens on my R3.
I own the adapter combo, seems fine to me, the biggest con ist the lens creep. Photo quality is certanly good no cliwnt or hobbyist should be concerned
I chose the EF version for my R5 because I shoot under very bright lights and wanted ND behind the lens.
I have the OG EF version. I just grabbed the RF kit lens version on Facebook Marketplace for 200 usd.
OMG - what a bargain!! 🤩
Well it’s a floating aperture from F/4-F/7.1 and it’s not weather sealed but the image quality is almost identical at f/11 and it’s so lite.
Top comparison mate, very thorough. The new RF lens does look better to me tbh but still, both are great lenses. Hope you're good :)
Superb video, helped me a lot, thanks!
Glad it helped! 🙏
Can barely afford the M50 😭 Getting the viltrox speedbooster and then the 24-105 EF Lens 👍👍
I got the m50 with kit lens wish it was pretty decent but i got for it the kamlan 50mm f1.1 and commlite adapter with 24 105 wish i got for free from a friend
I feel that man! 😰 I think you've got the right idea on the M50 route though 👌 - did a cinematic breakdown using a similar set up on my last vid 😁
I’m a cannon user from Sony full frame, I’m currently using EE glass and I shoot a lot of live indoor gigs so I’ve yet to see any difference, I purchased the Cannon R6
Thanks for your review. It would be naive thinking that EF lens producing same image quality as RF lens on native R body camera. Multiple tests confirmed that EF lens on R body camera are softer and producing lower image quality than RF version. So, it's in par with secondary market seeing flood of EF lenses selling chipper and chipper every day and also confirming by your review.
Excellent thanks Kai
I think if you get the EF version and the Canon speedboaster. You will get an extra light from F4 down to F2.8 and that is fantastic not to mention you will get 17mm-85mm which is way better wide than 24mm 😎😎😎
Very true, even with viltrox speed booster, I get f2.8 . And with much larger angle. I can literally shoot 4k on my canon m50 now. At first, it was almost impossible with the massive crop in 4k. Now it's almost like a standard 4k with very little crop.
Why is Canon starting to price gouge their loyal customer base on the majority of their EF L glass? I don't see similar increases on Sony's GM glass. Nor does Nikon appear to be price gouging on its premium glass.
because its canon
hello kai! I'm thinking about purchasing a lens for product photography. I've been using my 50 1.8 on my 6D and I'm looking for a more versatile lens. would you recommend the mk1 or mk2 24-105?
Hey Jerome 👋 I use the mk1 even today with my R6 and adapter and it is still amazing 🔥🔥😎
@@KaiCreative thank you!
low light is the main reason why I don't consider getting the 24-105 f/4!
I think with the crop frames this is very evident. Are you using any full frames?
Awseome content!
Is there an adapter that’s better vs another one? I see some as cheap as $30 and up to $300
Yes, some are 2 in 1, i.e adapters and speed boosters. I have viltrox adapter and viltrox speed booster. I got The speed booster for $200 and it helps me mount many EF lenses, decreases the 4k crop on my canon m50, increases the f4 aperture on this lens to f2.8 which a game changer. It also makes the aperture adjustable from f2.8 to f8.
Ordinary adapter can't do all the above except to mount EF lenses.
I just got my rf 24-105 f4 L today. Can’t Wait to go travelling to Test it out. I actually didn’t even want it, didn’t know what I would use it for. Still bought it for 850€ looks brand new. Even if I don’t like it I can sell it probably for 950 because u can’t buy it anywehere.
Which Canon Kit Lens is Right for You? RF 24-105 f4 L vs RF 24-105 f4-7.1 for R5, R6 cameras?
Price difference wise...if you buy variable aperture RF 24-105mm for the amount of money that is left you can buy RF 85mm f/2 and RF 16mm f/2.8.Do you really think that red ring of power is worth it?RF 24-105mm is stm is a great lens though!
Great vid Kai! The EF seems to do the job, not sure if the upload has compressed the quality, but I'm struggling to see the difference :-//
I think most people will agree with you tbh... but once you start playing with the photos and video files, you'll see it more and more 👌
I think that the RF renders the blacks ever so much more better than the EF lens 😉
Interesting analysis 🤔 I do see s slightly more richness to the blacks with the BBQ shots
I don't consider the cost of the adapter in my decision making process since I got it free with the body.
I was looking at the RF version when my IS on my EF version malfunctioned. However, I found a mint condition EF Mk. II for $500. I'd take the $600 savings and add it for a future lens purchase, probably an UWA lens. It's difficult to choose between the 14-35 F4 and 15-35mm F2.8 since only $300 separate them, at least where I'm at.
How is the dust sealing on this particular RF lens? I've heard photographers having a nightmare with Tamron and Sigma's current 24-70 due to dust getting sucked in to the lens due to poor sealing on the extending lens barrel. To your knowledge, does the RF F4 24-105mm L have a filter between the extending barrel and the main barrel to prevent dust from getting sucked into the lens? Or in your extensive use of the lens, have you detected any issues with dust [long term use]?
How many videos do you think you posted this comment on?
@@jwanger142 Not enough.
Ahh we absolutely LOVED our mark 1 24-105 for our 6d, and lucky enough Wera's best friend had the same camera and mark 2 we were able to borrow. The lens creep was so bad on ours and sometimes the image quality was rather soft at times but it had a nice 'charm' to it and it was such a great workhorse of a lens to learn with. Having used the RF version a bit, have to say the RF lens is superior in every way but as long as money is no object. Can see in your side by side images that the RF is noticeably sharper but the EF still looks great. Awesome comparison mate!
I had the exact same set up when I upgraded from my 550D for weddings went to the 6D and man did it make a difference, but yeah for video it is pretty poor by today's standards, the RF lenses are razor sharp on the R5 and R6 so much so that we are talking about using Pro-mist filters to help reign in that corporate look (: Appreciate your insights and experience here too 😍😎
The 24-105 is the worst l series lens and i quickly sold mine. If you're a serious photographer then don't touch the 24 -105 RF or EF. Stick with the smaller zoom ranges
RF all the way