Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM lens review with samples
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- Is this the low(er) budget zoom lens for EOS R camera's that we've been dreaming about - and how much will a surprisingly dark maximum aperture really bother you? Let me tell you now - this is one quirky little lens.
Find it here (Amazon affiliate link):
geni.us/canonr...
All pictures taken by me on a Canon EOS R camera.
Support me on Patreon! / christopherfrost
Equipment I use for making these reviews and other videos:
Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):
Canon EOS R5: geni.us/CanonE...
Canon EF-RF Adaptor: geni.us/CanonE...
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 'Art': geni.us/Sigma5...
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM: geni.us/CanonR...
Marumi Fit and Slim CPL Filter: geni.us/Marumi...
AudioTechnica AT2020USB+ Microphone: geni.us/AT2020...
Rode Smartlav+ Microphone: geni.us/RodeSm...
Rode SC3 adapter: geni.us/RodeSC...
Zoom H1n Recorder: geni.us/ZoomH1...
DJI Mini 2 Drone: geni.us/DJIMin...
Music:
'Opportunity Walks', Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons....
Me: sees f4-7.1
**Hold Up**
maybe Canon is a bit too cocky about their camera's high-ISO capabilities
@@GungKrisna12 No one understood this comment. I got your back. f/7.1-what do they expect us to use, 2s exposure, or ISO 25,600? LMAO Yeah, no
@@mikepawlikguitar You know what is the difference between 7.1 and 5.6? The difference between ISO 800 and 1200. If you don't like it you can always buy the F4 version for 3 times the price and 2 times the weight.
@@todanrg3 Why does nobody mention that this lens has a 5 stop image stabilization. You can get that back down to iso 400 if you want. People are so close minded.
Nah, I'll wait for the f/11-16 version
Haha
I heard there will be 100mm f.22 soon, watchout
Watch out for pin hole lenses for RF cameras! F35 to F56. You can take a direct picture of the SUN at ISO 1million and still need a 1s exposure!
🙂🙂
The Canon RF-"D" lens for gorgeous diffraction.
“Affordable to normal human beings” lmao
Alexander Kouris how much? 299€? ;)
Hahaha
Hahaah
People say "...that's why aliens won't come visit us" but aliens actually run this world. Lol.. my 2 cents 😅😅🤣🤣
Despite all the limitations, this lens probably provides a great, lightweight kit for e.g. the EOS RP. The dark aperture is only a problem for low light and action photography, but people shooting in such situations would never buy it anyway. For the rest, technology of today can easily cope with it; the EVF can compensate and AF performance is very quick indeed. The tests in this video show that it is very fast, just not lightning fast as in e.g. a Nano USM lens.
Yes. It's great lens for outdoors and hiking. It also adds a wide range of macro. Landscapers and studio work rarely shoots below F8 too.
If 'speed' isn't enough, you can pair it with the RF 35.
I have an EOS RP and it's a good enough camera to deserve better lenses than this for sure. Even my 1990s 28-135mm EF lens is much faster than this, at f/3.5-5.6, and those things cost like $100. And it has in-camera correction profiles on these cameras, AND also have image stabilization.
You can use a flash for those low light situations
@@sethmoyer 2/3 of a stop is not "much faster". Not to mention the 28-135 has fairly poor image quality that requires stopping down.
f/40 is truly amazing, you can shoot Canon Log at ISO 800 in full sunlight at 1/50 shutter speed no need for ND filters anymore lol
and you won't even need a promist filter anymore
Everone is tired of bokeh blurry nausea.
@@winstonqin9595 😄😄😄
Ok, I made a direct comparison to the EF 24-105 STM 3.5-5.6 myself.
In the center picture quality is the same. On the edges the EF is sharper than the RF lens.
The difference in aperture is hardly noticeable. I have chosen to keep the RF lens and sell the EF version because of smaller size and leighter weight. Also with the RF lens there is not need for the adapter.
Cheers Stefan
I thought the same with the EF F4. Size and weight matters enough that I will not bring it if it gets in my way. Plus, I have all the tiny primes adapted so I never worry about wide apertures or low light. Don't forget, the IS allows you to get lower ISOs at the better apertures.
Wow, Canon figured out how to cram a fisheye, a macro, and a travel zoom into one lens!
😂
Nah, I did a DIY version by cutting the bottom off of a milk bottle.
Without a doubt, the go to youtube channel for lens reviews!!!! Hats off! Nothing more needs to be said.
For the average consumer that lens will be fine, Canon needs that kind of lens to be available for kits and frankly UA-cam reviewers are all jaded due to too much reviewing, so they don't connect with average consumers in terms of their knowledge and expectations. So, consumers of the average type will be fine with it, and will enjoy it, especially outside and on trips, and it will keep the costs down for them as well. Glad they are going with less expensive lenses, and besides plenty of third party people will be after making many lenses of various quality for the RF mount. Think of how far he had to enlarge the image to see the performance, most people will never do that, just camera mavens, and they are not typical of consumers, for them, they can shell out thousands in search of perfection, which is nice for us all. But a range of quality and performance is needed for the market, otherwise the RF mount won't make it. Think of what Canon Rebels sell for including a kit, and the lower volume that will be coming due to the "thing" - Best wishes!
I think efs lens are better in price performance. a cheap 24.70 or 28.80 4 to 5.6 should be easier to make at a good price.
Wouldn’t average consumers buy an aps-c camera? Full frame cameras aren’t cheap for the casual shooter. You can expect full frame buyers to know their apertures and at that point you’re giving them the option between experiencing a blackout or spending 3k.
Btw, the RF mound as a product should be profitable on its own. Subtracting from entry level aps-c cameras is bad business at best and completely illogical in general.
I have one of these on an EOS R and it works great. The image quality is more than adequate if you're not going above 15x12. It is well balanced on the camera and makes a great travel camera outfit. And yes, I do have a set of L-series lenses and in real-world use you have to take into account the weight of extra glass. The f7.1 issue is not a problem
@@hopkinsroger f7.1 is not an ISO problem with 5 step IS. It is a subject to background issue. Just get closer or have the subject come closer.
"In 19st century, we used pinholes. So, f/7.1 is far from enough" (Canon, 2020)
Don't worry Chris, we love your yakking, adding more flavour to your already good lens image reviews.
F 7.1 is too small..f5.6 at 105mm would be reasonable.
f5.6 is not a down from f4 😂
This lens is about the same as the 18-85 kit found with the crop bodies.
They're 'cropping' the lens instead of cropping the sensor because everyone wants to shoot in FF.
@@LK-ho1dg it's like a third stop of difference 😂
T 1/8 ? crazy.
Next will be a 1:11 I suppose
@Paul Jones and that hiding of distortion through firmware and software trickery is really bad taste
Theory: Canon is going to offer this lens in a kit with the EOS RP for $999 US.
Why I think this?
The RF 24-240 (list price $899.99) was getting bundled with the $999 RP already for $1499. This was about a $400 discount on the list price of the lens.
The RF 24-240 is about the same quality as the new lens, but with a much larger focal range.
The RP just dropped in price the other day to $899 on Best Buy and Amazon (and maybe elsewhere), right before the R5 press conference.
A $999 pricepoint for a modern full frame mirrorless, and a good focal range kit zoom like this is nearly unheard of. Canon could easily corner the market on the low end with this kit, and on the high end with the R5.
A full frame with a decent lens for 1000$ it's really interesting.
On used market you'll soon find them for about 600$.. this means that a modern full frame will be affordable for everybody.
@@lino100x100 yeah, might be worth upgrading from Eos m6(mark 1) with kit lens.
I've already seen it at & 1399. The RP + this lens.
You made it ! Today we saw this bundle with exactly price as you mentioned !
@@ZhigeLi Yeah, I literally just found out yesterday and ran out to buy the bundle myself. Was going to wait and get the RP + 35mm when I had a bit more money, but local best buy only had one of these bundles and it was too good of a deal to pass up.
Six years old 24-105mm IS STM looks to be much better lens, nevertheless, Fullframe sensor cameras just deserve standard zoom with at least f/4 anyway.
You missing a point of this lens. The lens you mentioned is much bigger. And full frame is getting into affordable category, no longer is a premium. That means we will soon see a sub $1000 brand new FF camera. So those affordable cameras will need a kit lens similar in size and price. And the 7.1 aperture at 105mm is still brighter than a 5.6 lens on APS-C, for example.
So basically what to do :
-dont buy a RF 24-105mm f.4-7.1
- buy an older EF 24-105mm f.4 L
(Little bit cheaper and better)
Yardragil LAP Agree
But way too big. A 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 is much closer in size
But the 24-105mm f4-7.1 would become their future kit lens
Why not just get the RF 24-105 f/4L - it's only $100 more than the older EF version.
Wabajak13 The 24-85 is very soft in the corners as well. I sold my copy to get a 24-105 f4. It’s not perfect either but at least it has OIS and longer zoom
I bought this lens like 5 days ago (together with an EOS R). I found this channel two days ago, I checked out the reviews of all the expensive RF lenses. Yesterday, I decided to search if you had made a review on this lens, but I only found your review on the 35mm prime. You loved that one though so I got my hopes up that I also had a good lens. And today I saw this video... Well rip me I guess lmao. Thank you so much for the awesome review though!
Should still be returnable then. Good luck!
@@ekevanderzee9538 Thank you, luckily they are even open on the holiday tomorrow (gathering from your username I think you know which one I'm talking about)! I'll make a call to them than. I checked out the website of the store and if I had bought the bundle of the body and the L 24-105 mm lens, it wouldn't even be such a huge difference between what I now paid. I'm wondering if they let me trade in this almost new lens with a small amount of money for the L lens :O
This lens is absolute trash, especially for the EOS R, don't waste your money on this, buy the RF 24-105 f/4L.
The RF 35mm is SIGNIFICANTLY better than this cheap shit.
I was thinking to buy the kit too, now I will not buy with this lense
Hi Chris, this is my go-to site for lens reviews, and again an excellent informative, balanced and concise review of this lens. As many have stated this lens's cons (f7.1; poor image quality) outweigh it's pros (price; size) for me. The EOS R, RP and forthcoming R5 require top quality glass to exploit their full potential, this lens doesn't do that imho.
And the nominee for the "worst RF lens ever" is... The Canon 24-105 f/4-7.1 !
The 24-240 was a good candidate too, but at least it has an impressive zoom range, so I think it may be interesting for some people.
But here I don't see who's gonna buy a lens like this. It needed at least a good image quality...
If money is the limitation factor, you better go with a smaller sensor camera and buy a decent lens...
it may become their next kit lens
Gung Krisna still we’re talking about full frame and a kit lens for a bodies that are likely to start around the $1500 mark. I would argue that people buying into the RF System do have experience with better aps-c lenses than the kit lens they are going to get.
Lol, I'm stuck with it since it was bundled with the RP I got for a deal. Body only was 899 and bundle was 999, so I effectively paid $100 for the lens... For that price I'd say it's alright, it's actually pretty good for video. Saving up for the RF 24-105 f/4 now.
@@philsbruno and yeah, that lens is now one of the kit lenses for EOS R6 (besides the more expensive 24-105mm F4L kit)
@@LinhNguyen-im4uu for 100 bucks this lens is a steal. 😁
I sold this lens, but repurchased this lens at £180 2nd hand. It ain't perfect, but it's still better than smartphone. It's reasonably well worth it.
Haha, I just got an R8 after buying all these Sony bodies. Sony bodies are good, their lenses are not. Canon was right to release this lens and a bunch of small primes. NOBODY wants to carry an "SLR" bulky body anymore. With a small Canon full frame body (RP, R8) this is what I am complementing my Samsung Ultra with. It doesn't have to be one way or the other. The full frame captures all the details. If it looks good on my phone I take another with the Canon.
Ok Canon, we're gonna wait for the Sigma Art RF lineup!!!
Sigma Art FTW. Love their prime lenses.
Hopefully soon! Unfortunately, Canon RF mount is closed to third party. Yes, Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, etc could possibly reverse engineer it but it wouldn't be as good as native. Reasons, why I shoot with Sony right now, their mount is opened to everyone!
Canon is shooting themselves in the foot with the closed RF mount. No resources for inexpensive 3rd party lenses. Canon stop trying to be Apple!
Eh?? These are totally different lens types, purposes and market segments.
This is a $400 full-frame lens 24-105mm with 5 stops IBIS that weights less than 400 grams.
Anyone who thinks that this lens is mediocre for the price should get their brain checked.
I don't think it is mediocre, I think it is total GARBAGE!
Anyone who spends $2000 - $5000 on a Pro FF Camera body only to use a $400 garbage lens on it, needs to get their head checked!
@@-WhizzBang- How much is a Canon RP? Less than $1000. This lens not meant to be for $5000 Pro FF cameras. Not everyone wants or needs $1000+ lenses. This lens combined with a FF sensor is still brigher than the usual 5.6 APS-C lens. For the price it's a very good lens!
If you want better, get the F4 variant for 3 times the price or the 24-70 2.8 for 5 times the price!
@@todanrg3 the Canon RP is also a piece of junk. I have used this lens, and in my opinion, it is a cheap piece of garbage. You get what you pay for, which is WHY you will never see any real photographers use this lens for anything other than a paper weight! But hey, if it works for you, then great! I just hope nobody is paying you for any photography work!
@@-WhizzBang- Everything is garbage for couch pro's like you. Go buy $5000 cameras then. "Real" photographers are not defined by the price of the gear
I think this is a great option. I personally mostly shoot primes but it's sometimes nice just to have a zoom in the bag to cover a wider area. The fact that is slow doesn't matter so much if you're carrying primes as well.
Exactly, Canon did what Sony did not do. Release a bunch of small good enough primes. Like candy for photographers. I only use the 35F2 and will add the 28RF pancake for ultimate portability. And this lens is sharp enough to actually say it's better than my cellphone. Many lenses are not. Even the pancake 40mm2.8 adapted is good, but a slow focuser. Many of those tiny primes I rarely use 50, 85, 100 can all be adapted and are excellent lenses.
this thing is gonna cost like 100$ on the used market in 1 or 2 years lol
I'd say by next year. This Christmas I have no doubt Canon will do a big sales blitz with this lens and the RP, and I bet it sells a ton. Then, when people realize how shite this lens is and they actually care about having a good lens, they will flood the used market trying to recoup. No different from the 18-55mm lenses that get bundled. I have two of those that never see the light of day, one that never came out of the friggin box. I never even bothered to try to sell them since they are just not worth anything and anyone that would want one already has it! LOL
@@kevindiaz3459 My first camera was a Canon 400D with the 18-55 kit lens. Unfortunately it took me a while to realise how terrible it was. With a decent lens, even a 400D can actualy take great pictures, but I didn't know that before swapping to better lenses.
Don't under-estimate used gear value though. I digged it out my old stuff box, and decided to sell it after more than 10 years...
The 400D (working well but with significant wear) was sold 100€ within 2 days.
The 18-55 (perfect condition lol, not much used) was sold 50€ within 24h, and I had a lot of contacts, I'm sure it could be sold even more than that.
Honestly I didn't even expect to sell it, but it seems that there is a market, even for old crappy entry level stuff lol
@@PAD32 kit lens are actually amazing, if u cant use it to take great pictures dont blame the lens, blame on how you see something.
@@mrinsaf Did you ever use any good lens? I think you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't say that this 18-55 is amazing LOL. I owned some gear from budget to professionnal, and also things in between, and yes, I can tell you that this lens is REALLY bad. Poor autofocus, poor optics, small aperture, no IS. I can't see anything good about it, except maybe the price. Even my mid-range smartphone is better in a lot of aspects than a kit like this.
A decent lens on a decent camera helps taking better pictures, it offers a lot more possibilities, and is just a lot more pleasant to use.
Now, can you take great pictures with a 18-55? If you don't care about image quality, yes. But there is MUCH better options, even for low price
@@PAD32 A wood screw also has a good price ;-)
Good to see Canon putting some more affordable non L RF lens options on the market, shame about it only being 7.1 end at the telephoto end though, I managed to get a good condition EF 24-105 L F4 for my Canon EOS RP for £300 & I'd be advising my friends to do the same given that this is priced at £450 in the UK. Great review as always Christopher 👍
I was going to do that given my favorite lens when I had my 5D was that 24-105L, but then I remembered that that Mk I lens was not really that sharp and even at F4, the DOF was very, very shallow compared to any crop sensor or 1 inch compact (The original 5D having terribly slow focus, too). Being that it would be 1 inch even longer with the EF-R adapter and it was as big and heavy as I remembered, I tried this first. Plus, I have all the primes in the focal lengths I like, so who can complain when the total (body and lens) weight is at about 2 pounds. The difference between now and back then is the smaller bodies, better image stabilization and much, much better optics on the 7.1 lens.
This is, for me, a 18-55mm for full frame, though with a much better focal length range. I would expect it to deliver slightly sharper pictures with more clarity on the R, than the 18-55mm on APS-C.
Everyone forgets, if you use this lens on a full frame body, you get incredible shallow DOF compared to any crop sensor or 1 inch compact camera. The "slowness" does not matter as much because of this factor. Another complaint is that at those smaller apertures, you will need to increase ISO, thereby increasing noise. That's not 100% correct because with the image stabilization, you can get lower shutter speeds to lower the ISO assuming your subject can be stationary. Since this lens is not a professional lens, you do not need 105mm at F2. A portrait at over 10feet away an 100mm F2, only the eyes would be in focus. It would be better to keep an 85 1.8 or 100 F2 around for that purpose. But if you are needing a zoom lens, you are probably not shooting portraits all day long anyways. Wide open at 24mm is not necessary (if that is the worse performance of the lens) because F4.5 is essentially the same. The wide focal lens doesn't need a high shutter speed to prevent blurring and with the 5 stop image stabilization, it doesn't matter. What really matters is that this lens is one of the sharpest camera branded kit lenses that I have ever seen since the beginning of digital photography. I am not kidding. I have been using a 15 year old 35mm prime for ages and I cannot say that this zoom lens is a dog. For the purpose it is made for (travel, convenience), this is an incredibly good lens. It's a full generation above any kit lens from S, N or even F. As everyone has said a million times, the only camera that matters will the the one you bring. I can tell you, not many people are bringing the F2 zooms or even F4 zooms for that matter. I will only bring this zoom and 1 or 2 primes and my Samsung Ultra (AI is getting very, very good). There is no need these days to dabble in a crop sensor. There is no more need to worry about video (your phone can already do it very well). There is no time to use all this crap.
Really seems like the cons outweigh the pros pretty heavily with this lens. I was actually kind of interested in it due to its small size, and could have lived with the small maximum aperture, but the problems with it seem to be pretty severe. The lack of a AF/MF switch would be the final nail in the coffin for me, especially given that it's wide angle macro feature is MF only. I would hate have to switch back and forth from AF to MF in the menu! $450 really isn't that cheap for what is essentially a kit lens - I'd definitely spend the money on the 24-105 F4 instead.
Maybe use it as a sunshine lens. Pity about the sharpness then, though.
At this point, I can't tell if Canon cares about their RF lenses as a whole like it seemed like they did or just the pro end of the spectrum. The 24-240 was _horrific_ on the wide end and the only leg up this one has is the fact that it covers more of the full frame circle. They claimed their giant mount meant they could make faster, smaller lenses. They should have proven that and did Sony's 28-70 better than them.
years later I'm still chasing my tail on this topic - I have the 15-35 F2.8 Rf and the 100-400ii.... on occasion I would like to have something to cover that 35-100mm gap - but! It seems like the only "decent" option is the F4 24-105 RF... I'm just not thrilled about the price
@@07wrxtr1 And now you see half of my problem with them. The good native options for that focal range are expensive, and the cheaper ones have some glaring issues that make them worth avoiding.
This is why I'm such an advocate for cheap adapters and vintage lenses.
@@RealRaynedance Yeah maybe I can find a good copy of the old 24-105 EF F4 L ??
@@07wrxtr1 Or some manual focus primes from the 70s and 80s from various brands if you don't need autofocus or could live without a zoom. Only you know whether you need those two things or not. Personal preference for me, I prefer covering 35 to 85 with primes.
One of the best reviews of a product, you make sensible comparisons, easy for the viewer to digest, most of all you clarify with facts one can see, many thanks.
WOAHHHHH I almost bought a EOS r with this kit lens thinking it was the 24-70 F4 L!!!!! That was close!
Same lol
Even 6.5 would be acceptable. But 7.1 is too much.
Man, 6.3 vs 7.1 it´s about 1/3 of a stop less... It´s the difference between shooting at ISO 1050 instead of 800, so not that much. But if you said f5.6, I would agreed with you :P
Is it really that dark for a kit lenses? If it was an APSC, it would translate into 15-65mm f/2.5-4.4 - not that bad, is it?
The F-stop would still be F4-7.1. That doesn't change. The FL would be somewhere around 15-65mm, that is pretty close. From a technical point of view, crop factor also doesn't change the focal length, but rather the effective angle of view. People express it as FL since it seems easier to understand it that way, but then, I think that is really only true for those that have the knowledge of what FL is most useful in a given scenario for a full frame camera. Then, when compared to crop factor, that knowledge tells them what FL to use. It's more confusing than it has to be...
It's still a little bit better than a crop kit.
While F7.1 will always be F7.1 in terms of light-gathering, keep in mind that FF shoots higher ISO better than a crop.
So, it's still right to assume the same F4.4 performance on a crop altough not always correct. It depends on sensor quality for the light.
With an infinite depth of field. And that's why many people want to try a "proper" camera instead of their phone. I guess we'll see many RP's on Ebay soon with all that disappointment coming up.
Kevin Diaz I’ll try to explain it again. You have two DIFFERENT cameras with two DIFFERENT lenses. One is full frame (FF) camera with a lens 105mm, Aperture set to 7.1, ISO 500, shutter speed let’s say 1/100s. The other camera is a 1.6 crop (APSC) with a 65mm lens, aperture set to 4.4, ISO 200, shutter speed 1/100s. If you take pictures with those two cameras and settings mentioned above, you’ll get the exact same RESULT (same composition, same depth of field, same exposure and even the noise level is the same on same generation sensors). This is just physics, this is how it works and it’s been proven and you can try it too (people tend to argue until they try it). So, there’s really no difference between APSC and FF if you had equal performing lenses (which would be also equal sized). Just a side point: the real difference whether to chose APSC or FF system is the lens selection (for example, you can get 85mm f/1.2 for a FF but there’s no 50mm f/0.75 for an APSC system) and the fact that FF camera base ISO is usually 100 whereas APSC camera base ISO is also 100 but it should be translated to ~40 for the same results. Alright, after that theory, back to my point: People get mad about a FF lens f/7.1. But they are fine with APSC f/5.6 lenses that give you even worse results... Once again, we talk about FF lenses on FF cameras, APSC lenses on APSC cameras
@@og7650 You are 100% right!
But people like to rant.
Have taken some excellent pictures with this surprisingly low priced lens.
Thank you Chris for one more clear and concise review! Always one of the first if not the first to review a new lens. I was wondering if you could add in the future samples that show bokeh and sunstars quality as these are determining factors for an image's native technical quality along with the lens' optics.
Was hoping for this lens to have near optical quality to the more expensive f4 L. But it turns out the slow aperture, lack of weather sealing and dedicated control ring and missing hood and bag weren't enough factors to keep the lens cheap, small and light. Optics are less than stellar at the wide end. Oh well.
I bought this lens after running around on the mountains over my holidays with 35mm f1.8 macro IS RF, wide, but I found that zoom would be helpful, the dark end of this lens is not an issue if it`s used in full sun landscape... sharpnes on the corners... well, I like to shoot panoramic photos merged from 13-30 expositions, one photo on each area of the view, sharpness in the middle is enough, the resoiult is always cropped to 1920px on longer edge so it`s sharp enough for that resolution, that`s my way. Comparing: the lens is great for daily walk, landscapes, travel... bot for photo sessions, weddings and other photography I have primes and thios particular one 24-105 is always at home when I`m photographing those other things.
Exactly, plus a lot of EF primes are really excellent and cheap right now. I still use my 35mm F2 ALL the time. This zoom lens is just as fun as when I had the F4 version almost 20 years ago but the body and lens now weighs as little as the lens itself!
thankyou - enough for me to rule this one out for my needs,
Literally can’t wait to see Nikon S lenses tested in your laboratory Chris! I’m a Nikon shooter and am stoked to see you using a Nikon Z7.
This lens at 24mm reminds me your review about the other convenient RF mount Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM lens. Horrible at 24mm too. Convenience, low cost and optical quality rarely go together in photography and digital image processing inside the camera compensates for that. With the cameras of smartphones that is more than frequent.
At maximum 105mm focal length this lens looks really sharp form corner to corner. At 105mm even with f/7.1 there is a change for some shallow depth of field and the pincushion distortion of raw files is flattering with portraits.
With poor lighting a tripod can really lower the shutter speed and permit decent ISO levels, but a tripod is never convenient with the target group of amateurs, this lens is designed for.
Sony have similar full e-mount frame lenses at 24-105mm and 24-240mm. Both of them have respectable performance at 24mm.
Thanks for another great review Christopher. We know something is plainly amiss when you use the ‘shock horror’ sound effect! Would love to see a 24-105 face off to include this lens, older L (second hand option) and new L RF, just to see what extra you get for the money on this popular standard zoom range. Thanks again, and stay safe.
Yes. If you ever played Metal Gear Solid on the 1995 Playstation, it'll be familiar.
My Eos R would cry if I put this lens in front of the sensor..
What lense do you use for your eos r?
I got the R6 with this lens it’s pretty awesome. Takes nice sharp photos. Don’t need an ND filter since f7.1. Pretty cool
Christopher, glad you do these reviews, but, alas, you didn't learn anything from the Canon RF 24-240mm review and comments. Automatic distortion correction is not "a bad thing". It is how mirrorless lenses can be made to be much cheaper and lighter. Showing the uncorrected RAW file is misleading. If you own the lens - and once the lens is released - it becomes irrelevant. The corrections will be made automatically with the correct lens profile that will come with your software. If you use Canon's DPP software to open the RAW file, the correction is applied immediately and you will never know what the uncorrected RAW file even looks like. When the RF 24-240 first came out, many Canon users were unaware that this type of auto correction was already being used on mirrorless lenses produced by Sony, Olympus and others. So the lens was bashed - and no doubt many folks were erroneously steered away from buying what turns out to be a very fine lens for one with such a large zoom range. Since you are one of the few reviewers on youtube that produce reasonable reviews without an obvious agenda, it is sad to see that you don't seem to understand this new mirrorless philosophy. The uncorrected images are irrelevant. You should make that clear, rather than make it a talking point. It should also be noted that the 7.1 aperture is only 2/3rds of a stop difference from 6.3 - which would be a common aperture for a cheap consumer lens. And considering that today's sensors can easily produce fine results with much higher ISOs, there really is no issue. You will be able to shoot at 7.1 with a camera today much more easily than you could shoot 6.3 or even 5.6 with a digital camera made 10 years ago or more. And considering photographers usually shot film with ISO 100, 200 or at most 400, the argument that 7.1 is unusable or even difficult is absurd. If you need a lens that gathers more light, or has a slimmer DOF, there are certainly better choices. This lens is less than 1/2 the price and almost 1/2 the weight of the RF 24-105 L lens, so yeas, there are compromises. Some folks think that every lens should have the same specs, but no company can make a consumer lens for 1/2 the cost and weight and then make it perform the same as the pro-level alternative. As a consumer, I would rather have the more choices rather than two lenses that are almost the same.
The nice thing about this lens is that it’ll be cheap as chips on the used market. Perfect for someone who needs just a lens!
What would you need this lens for though? Paperweight?
OMG F-40!!! Is this a lens or a jet fighter!
Imagine the R5 comes with this lens kit 😂😂😂😂😂
This is a fascinating idea. I guess that this f/7.1 lens will work better with R5 than with EOS RP. Because R5 will likely have better low light performance than RP. So R5 owners can use this lens, whille RP owners should pay more, and buy the RF 24-105 f/4.0. (I am not 100% serious, but it is an interesting thought.)
@@dahebable plus, R5 will have an IBIS
@@dahebable It will not be significantly different between those cameras. Even if you compare old cameras, let's say a 6D, with a EOS R, there is almost no difference in low light performance
I don't think the R5 would be so happy to see this trash lens in front of its sensor lol
It looks like a nice lens for vacations for a lot of people. Image quality is quite acceptable for snapshots and walking
around the city as a tourist.
Chris, at 10:27 you said f/3.5. You meant f/4, didn't you?
Cheers
Just a note when quoting the US / UK prices that the US price quotes don’t include local sales taxes which our UK prices do (VAT) as they vary state to state and can add a significant amount.
Yes, that's correct. But even with an added 5% tax, it's better value in the US
aperture isn't a problem only at noon... any other scenario will be like you've forgot to take the ND filter off the lens.
Atleast lenses with forgotten nd filters have better bokeh 🤣
I would usually get annoyed at a few Sony's low-budget lenses for having that distortion problem at wide angle. Well, here is Canon having the same issue. Seems to be more like a problem with designing mirrorless lenses. Let's wait for a Nikon-equivalent of that.
After reading all the
Comments. Not sure what people are expecting for the low price. A Ford Fiesta does not perform the same as a Ford Mustang therefore. The mustang cost more.
True..and the Fiesta is half the weight. Bought this lens used three weeks ago and I'm delighted with it.
I'm sure this lens will go down in price, but at the moment, adapting ef glass sounds like a better idea. Also, I thought that f 6.3 would be the ridiculous new normal for z and rf superzooms, but f7.1 is kind of staggering. My mft kit telephoto is f11 equivalent, which isn't much darker.
Regarding your prediction for a price drop: 3 years on price remains the same $399.00 USD and is currently on backorder.
@efreutel With inflation, maybe it is a drop in real terms lol. But lens selection has improved on mirrorless and the used market is more active thanks to the elapsed time.
7:56 I remember this sound effect in your RF24-240 review lol
Since you have handled both, do you prefer this one, or would you prefer spending the $200 extra for the 24-240mm?
Maybe Canon is too cocky about their camera's high ISO capabilities that they made a very dark aperture lens
Also:
7:57 => NANI!?
Brilliantly deciphered, CF.
Got a Canon refurbished one for a bit more than $100. Has not been using it much until recently finally found a good use case - under daytime outdoors where a large aperture cannot be used anyway without ND.
Next up Canon RF 70-200 f/11 to f/40. What's wrong with canon😰
stupid comment.
What's wrong with you?
I'm starting to think that shooting landscapes mostly in 1:1 format will be a huge boon on my choice of lenses since most of these "cheap" RF are usually very sharp from center to mid-frame. :D
1:1 gets rid of the corners so any lens will be awesome.
Considering this is a beginner’s lens, for the same price think of all those lovely little STM lenses one could pick up used for the R... EF-S 10-18, 18-135, 50 1.8 or 40 2.8... If full frame zoom is a must, then a used 24-105 f4 or even a well warn 24-70 2.8 can be picked up cheaper!
Im finding it hard to hit the buy button on "R" series body and lenses. Its feels like at the moment Canon are still trying to figure it out. This "budget" end lens will not help matters.
Really love your reviews as they are the honest ones i can find in here.
Man I was hoping this could serve as a little 24mm+. Usually standard lenses are designed to prioritize the wide end over the telephoto- most people don't need sharp corners at the long end
Hey Christopher, I really like your channel! I Always look for your reviews of all my future lenses! Will you be reviewing the rf 85mm f2 lens soon?I want to buy this one, but want to see your pro review before I buy it.
I tested it at fair, night shots was amazing I had no complaints, canon eos r with the kit lens 24-105mm
I'm against the odds.... I managed to use this lens on R6 to capture good results with airliners arriving into Hong Kong (under x1.6 crop mode).
This lens is so light that I carry to work every day.... Ofc it is during the daytime.
We, enthusist and pro despised lens like these. However compared to smartphone performance... This is still superior
Very helpful! I'm interested in an affordable lens with wide angle capabilities. After watching your video I realized this is not good for wide angle photography. Thank you!
EOS RP + 24-70 F4-7.1 is a pretty budget full frame kit!
I would buy an old EF L lens over this one tbh.
fOr people like me who used cropped bodies for their entire life with 18-55 (f/3.5-5.6), f5.6 is = f/9 and still managed to survive so i don't think this lens will be any problem to us! 😂
A solid review, as always.
This is more in competition with the APS-C market than anything else, both price, weight and speed wise.
It's the APS-C equivalent of 16-70mm F2.7-4.7.
Not in terms of light gathering capability.
I would consider the lens since you can do self-portraits and some product photography. Maybe in 5 to 10 years, I will get a legacy Canon mirrorless camera.
Its F2 to F3.5 on MFT which is Amazing!
Don’t try to reason with MFT-Folks, they are in denial when it comes to physics
Great, thorough review thanks. Bit disappointing though. Was hoping for better performance at the wide end, even if it sacrificed a bit at the long end. I would much rather add a 100g, and $100, and have just that bit better performance. I guess Canon have to make this just bad enough to push the likes of me to the RF 24-105 (where the its the weight that bugs me most). Edit after re-watching: That 24m distortion and required correction really is poor. Should have been a 24-70!
In your test image, near the lower-left corner was taken in Portmeirion Village, Cornwall, correct? That was where the 1967 British television series "The Prisoner" was filmed. I'm told you can stay there. Did you stay there to take that shot?
I will go with the F4. Worth the price . Thank you Chris.
the F4 is great!
Hello Christopher,
I have a canon 24-85 ( featured on your channel) and an older EF canon 70-210, EF 50mm 1.8 and a Tamron SP 15-30. I have a RP camera. Should I go for the RF 24-105 or RF 24-70 or 24-240 in this review or RF 24-105 4-7.1,?
I am thinking of upgrading later to a R5 or something but maybe it is too much to spend USD 2500 on a 24-70 lens when the RP is USD 1300 at the most?
I have all that just like you. For the lenses I rarely use, the adapter will just be fine. But for the most compact and highest (and cheapest option), I went RF 7.1. It's way sharper than the old 24-85 and half the weight or more than the rest. If you understand FF, IS, ISO and apertures then 7.1 may not be an issue.
I believe Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is a lot sharper than this kit lens. I wonder why Canon did not convert old EF 28-135 to RF mount.
No. RF one is sharper. The IBIS + IS compensated the aperture. IMO it is better than EF 28-135
Even cheap APS-C kit zooms don't have a max aperture of 7.1, maybe some very old zoom glass do, but well... That's some lens that shouldn't even exist on the EOS R lineup...
Please make a video on L series and non L series of canon Lens
Do you think Canon's old discontinued 24-85 mm would outperform this one in the wide range? Would be interesting to see that old gem tested on the R platform against the new generation- and I assume the lens correction profiles will work on the newer cameras too...
What about Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 XR Di LD - you can find it very cheap used
Makes me really appreciate my APS-C 18-200 with f6.3 on the 200 end.. I suppose the 7.1 is the price to pay for a similarly compact full frame super(ish) zoom
What do you think a new enthusiast to the photography would have a happier time with: the 24-105 f4-7.1 and buying the ef/rf adaptor or the paying for the 24-240 kit? The person is mainly training their eye and mind to be well versed in taking pictures of their growing family.
This came as a kit lens with my RP and.. well, it has a ton to be desired. One thing angers me the most is the 24-240mm superzoom "only" looses 4/3rd stops of aperture compared to this which is 5/3rd, while only has just under 5x zoom. Surely they could've made this only looses 1 stop of aperture if they don't cheap out too much, and leave the stupid & difficult-to-use macro thing.
With all being said, it is pretty affordable for the zoom level it offers, giving quite a big opportunity for people just came into the full frame market such as the RP itself. I somewhat think of this lens as the EF-S 18-55mm we all know (and love?) that's been the bog standard kit lens for the APS-C Canon DSLRs throughout the years. Yes it's cheaply made and left a lot to be desired, but after some generations it makes such a perfect sense, it offers an okay zoom range (this 24-105 has even more obv), produce good enough image for the sensor, and most importantly, affordable.
This makes me think of the future of Canon EOS R/RF line up. I can see two things, first and most absolutely, this variable aperture 24-105mm would came generations after generations with some improvements along the way as kit lens, and second (depending on the popularity of Canon R system) they will be making an RF 24-70 variable aperture as the cheaper kit lens option like the EF-S 18-55 we all know (and love?).
This was your funniest video so far.
F40?? At least that should make some macro photographers really happy haha
Hey Chris love your videos. Everyone says IS can help you drag the shutter. Have u done any testing with either Sony ibis or canon is to see how much more the IS gives you if u keep iso and f stop the constant? I looked and didn’t see if there is any calculations that incorporates this setting.
It appears that Canon has intentionally decided to make their non-L RF zoom lenses of subpar optical quality that would not be marketable without the cameras' built-in software image corrections. What they would have attempted to fix optically in EF lenses they now leave to be corrected in software for RF lenses. This approach might make sense if it significantly drove down the price of lenses. However, I've not yet seen a non-L RF lens with a low enough price and high enough quality with software correction to provoke me to pick it over using an EF lens with an adapter.
Everyone does that, nothing new. Check Sony or Olympus lenses for example. The Sony 16-50 has 10% distortion and looks like a fish-eye uncorrected.
Nothing wrong with software correction if the final image is good. It can make lenses smaller and cheaper.
@@todanrg3 Not everyone. My Leica M lenses are tiny and pretty much fully corrected. The lens coding is only for colour fringing and EXIF data. Of course zoom lenses are always a compromise in optical design.
I like the size that they made it,but really disappointing with it's f7.1...hope Tamron or sigma will come out with 24-105mm f4-5.6 at the same price point
Thank you for including focus breathing in your videos!
I actually think it’s an alright lens when you need smaller, lighter options yet with a good zoom range
It’s ok for the general user getting into photography. However, while it’s not a real fair comparison because of sensor size and therefore cost of the lens, I can’t help but compare it to the lumix 12-60 f3.5-5.6. Which on a m4/3 camera gives an equivalent field of view of 24-120mm at a brighter aperture of 5.6 in the telephoto and 3.5 on the wide. It’s optically great with no major flaws, stabilised, extremely cheap and it’s even dust and splash proof with a gasket at the mount.
It just makes me think that perhaps the target market for this lens, being the low budget novice photographer would be better served with a small size sensor that will be able to facilitate better lenses for the same or cheaper prices.
Hi Chris, many thanks for this review! The vignetting of this lens at 24mm is a no-no. Yes, Nikon goes a different way. I‘m very happy with my Nikon Z6 I purchased used last year. I’d rather opt for a Nikon Z with the 4.0/24-70mm. By the way: With the Fringer smart adapter attached on it, it works very well with my Canon EF lenses. The good thing is, that the Z6 features in body image stabilization. Maybe an interesting option for you to review in the future. Best, Ralf
I rather get the extra 35mm over a bit of vignetting
Hi Chris, for me personally and maybe more people as far as I see reading on forums, would be interesiting to see this into 45 MP full frame and as well on R7 32MP, Regards.
This will be so worth it once it hits the used market! (Great value even new)
Hey Chris, is the Tamron 70-180 review coming? :)
I'm actually quite surprised these new RF lenses are compared to simlilar offering from sony for example. What's the use of a small compact lens if the image is so bad? Better off just buying a MFT system...for as long as we still can...
We don’t shoot full frame to get a f/7.1 aperture! I’d rather just bring a point and shoot at that point.
I think I'll stick with my 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 as my "beater" lens. Or just save up for the f/4 version.
There's still a f/4 kit
it's a great travel lens with the lightweight RP
Thank you for a good review. Much appreciated.
The size and price are awesome....everything else is kinda blah.
Christopher Frost great work...brother...!!!