I bought the RF 24-105 F4L as my first RF lens two years ago when I bought an R6. I soon sold my Tamron 24-70 F/2.8 and only rarely use my Canon EF 16-35 F/4L anymore. The RF 24-105 quickly became my favorite lens, maybe ever. Today, I mainly use it on an R5 as my go-to for landscapes, family snapshots, travel, and just walking around. It's brilliant. I tell new entrants to the RF system to make this the first lens they buy.
Interesting. I'm considering the same thing as I also have the Tamron 2.8 G2. I got the R6 with this lens last week, and I quickly found indoor photos were very difficult without going to 5000+ iso. Do you not use it much inside the house?
@@nickbailey202 my Tamron was the original. The Canon is lighter, sharper, and faster-focusing. I do shoot indoors without a flash sometimes, up to ISO 12,800. My main body nowadays is the R5. I do have and use a Speedlite 600EX II when necessary. Any lens is gonna need help at some point if there just isn't enough light. I also use Topaz DeNoise to clean up high ISO noise. The RF 24-105 F/4L is fantastic and I can't recommend it enough.
@@Tomek1Oko if that's your question, just compare the bodies and how their features fit your needs and budget. All the native RF lenses will perform equally on either body. Any difference in image, focus, etc. will be because of the body.
better than EF 24-70 / 2.8 version II? I´ve spent lot of time looking for reviews and keeping my 24-70 seem better than invest much more money to newer one.
Had an eos R5, went to a sony A7RV, and now im back to the eos R5 and gonna stay at canon. I missed the lovely canon colors, and also the body, ergonomics etc.... Never gonna switch again!
Same here. Had a Sony A7RV but never quite liked it and upon testing out a Canon R5 I instantly sold all my Sony gear and bought an R5 along with a few L lenses. Zero regrets
I'm really liking this long term reviews, now I'm getting curious to see the long term review of the Sony 24-105 G too! It's a bit old now but I think still holds up well as an all rounder lens.
I have this lens. A great all arounder really. I go between this and the 35mm 1.8rf as my travel lens. Depends on the weather and what I feel like that day.
I got this lens on amazon at the same time I bought the Eos R a few days after its release. I got it for less than €1000. Since then they have tried to buy it from me on several occasions. Lack of stock and continuous increases. Today I consider it to be a perfect lens for the R system. It is the lens that I always wear, for any occasion, recreational, professional, it doesn't matter. Using the rest of the RF lenses if the purpose demands it. But the RF24105lf4 always goes with me.
Looking at this one. The only other normal focl range lens that I have is the 28-70 f2. Its an interesting lens but its huge and not that well suited for walk about and travel use. I wonder if this 24-105mm lens + the 50mm or new 35mm prime makes more sense than the 28-70.
That's an interesting question, and as I haven't had a chance to test the 28-70 (getting a loaner has been pretty much impossible), I can't give a definitive answer. This 24-105 is a very nice walkaround lens with a flexible focal length and reasonable size. I do love the 50mm F1.2L, and the new 35L looks promising. Those could be good alternatives, but that comes down to your individual need.
What a great review! Thanks so much for taking the time to offer your advice and experience. Your narration and video can't be beat. Really appreciate it.
Hello Just an absolute informative video regarding the RF 24-105 f/4. This is still Canon’s Swiss Army knife or Leatherman of lenses. Your review helps me as I just purchased a Canon R6 MKII and was thinking about buying this lens. Since I have a 5D MKIV & 90D, I’ll adapt my older EF lenses until I can get my money right. I’m also considering purchasing the EF 24-70 f/2.8 (L) II USM and adapt it for the R6 MKII. The 90D works well with the MKII 24-70mm given its sensitivity to certain lenses and its pixel density. Well you’ve given me more data so I can make an informed decision. May you & your family have a blessed and safe Christmas Holiday Season.
Considering that 80D with just one L lens (ef 100-400 mark2) and a few efs lens was my gear, I am pleased with the eos r and the rf24-105 L. I even tried Astro with it and at iso 3200, the resulting images were superb compared to the crop sensor option (efs 24mm). The larger sensor is impressive. I’ll keep using the r until it quits for my casual usage and will be buying the rf 70-200 f4L zoom soon. I h have not used my efs lenses with my eos r because of the loss of resolution. Thanks for your video.
Bought it some months ago for general purpose photography and more for video on an R6ii - all the points you mentioned in your fine review are 100% consistent with my experience! Except the macro range this lens delivers on a consistently high level - especially on 24 MPix - and the macro deficit can be worked around by using f/4 for dreamy look with main subject close to center and f/8 if you need much higher correction. Will pair with an APS-C-body with EF 100-400 to have 24...105 + 160...640mm (in FF terms) range - for video too. And the RF 24-105 shines for video due to its very quiet AF - zooming isn't that quiet, at least with my copy. I think that the air has to pass some filter for dust protectioin and it makes a silent but audible whining noise. An all purpose zoom lens that convinced me as zoom hater especially because it includes the 105mm which is my "standard" focal length.
I bought this lens partly as a travel zoom (my workhorse lens is the 28-70, and that is both heavy and conspicuous), but more primarily as a video lens, and for that it is fantastic. - Small and light enough to mount on most gimbals, and with in-lens stabilisation so competent that you often won't need to. In fact, I can often leave the tripod at home too. - Smooth, silent, and accurate autofocus. - Perfectly sharp enough for outstanding 4K footage. - Great handling making it a joy to use. - Coupled with the excellent quality 4K crop-video option on the R5, gives all the focal lengths you could want for most shooting situations, from 24 all the way to 170-ish. And for me personally, I find that being limited to a max aperture of f/4 keeps me from opening up the lens too much and completely melting my backgrounds. Shallow depth of field can be a useful tool, and I love to play with it in photography, but in video I find it to more often be a distraction. Showing the environment that your subject/character is in can provide much more richness to the scene, and allows for more emphasis to be put on composition. If you're a video-maker thinking of working with the Canon RF system, the 16mm, the 35mm, and the 24-105mm are all wonderful and relatively affordable options that Canon has provided. (I'm sure the 50mm f/1.8 is also nice to have, but I can't vouch for it myself as I haven't had the need to pick one up).
Thanks. I have the 35mm and the 24-105mm f4 (shooting with an R6). I am thinking of getting the 16mm. Are the distortion and vignetting in the Raw images easy to correct? (Talking about the 16mm f2.8)
@@cjm8160 I'll answer as best I can. Yes and no. I use Lightroom, and that has a correction profile for the 16mm, so it's very easy to correct for the distortion and the vignetting. However, personally, I don't love Adobe's correction profile. If you shoot Raw and JPG and compare, the way Canon handles the distortion in-camera is more pleasing to me. You can fiddle with the corrections yourself (including cropping slightly), or experiment with different lens profiles to see how they look, but that might feel like too much hassle. But like I said, that's a personal complaint, you might like Adobe's corrections just fine! And to be honest, it's such a minor thing that most people would never notice. In general, the 16mm does have bad extreme corners. But again, most people would never notice in most shots, and if you are bothered by it in a particular shot, you could use the lens as an 18mm, crop a little in post and be left with more acceptable corners. I mainly use the 16mm for three things: video, where the in-camera corrections are baked-in (and the extreme corners are cropped off anyway with a 16:9 aspect ratio). shooting jpg, when I don't want to worry about about doing much post-processing and I'm mainly interested in playing with that unique ultra-wide angle look. or shooting those few scenarios where you just absolutely need a wide angle, such as capturing an entire event space. The vast majority of my photography is shot at >28mm (with most being between 50mm-100mm). The 16mm is just such a great tool to have in my bag, as it weighs almost nothing and takes so little space, but it can do something that none of my other lenses are capable of in those situations where I need it. You'll know yourself if you find yourself wishing you could shoot wider than 24mm often enough to be worth grabbing the 16mm.
I purchased this lens in the EF mount and chose it over the 24-70 f2.8. I liked the extra reach and with my full frame camera the f4 aperture did not bother me. I think it is a superb lens. No regrets.
Believe me, having shot the EF version for over a decade on a 5DII, and now having shot the RF for a year on the R6; The difference is night and day. I did prefer the build of the old EF though.
When we went to Japan for two weeks I only took my EOS R and RF 24-105 f4, down from my 5DIV, EF 24-70 & 70-200 f2.8 plus 50 f1.4 (that's -1.8gk). I found myself lacking only 2% of the time, but found myself relieved of an unnecessary burden 98% of the time. I even managed to snap a quite nice portrait with it inside "teamLab Planets". :)
Yet another good review DA. You have touched upon my main gripes with Canon, the lack of 3rd party competition, and their high price structure. I have wanted to switch from DSLR to mirrorless for a few years now - but what I really want is a Sony A7IV in a Canon Body with the Tamron glass. Sony has just done their homework well WRT cost v specification and it is an area that Canon continues to disappoint.
Canon Cameras and lenses are made in Japan. Sony cameras are made in China/Thailand and Tamron lenses are made in China. Sony owns 15% of Tamron and used to own a minority share of Olympus. Sigma makes their own Brand cameras too and is a founding member of the Leica L mount alliance. Sony and Sigma both have patents for they sensors which they won't license Canon. Why do you expect Canon to commit suicide by allowing unfair competition?
Hi Dustin... first thanks for all your insightful reviews. I am "re-born" semi-pro photographer and recently upgraded to the Canon mirrorless system (R6 II to be precise.) I initially thought of keeping the majority of my EF lenses, but decided to sell them and migrate to the RF glass. So far I have in my arsenal this lens (RF24-105mm F4) as well as the RF 14-35mm and the RF 70-200 F4. But I am thinking of adding the RF 24-70 F2.8, but not sure yet. I know it is also an excellent all-purpose walkaround lens like the 24-105. My question is if I should buy the 24-70 F2.8 or not. Now that I am on pre-retirement age, we are travelling more around the world and the intent is to use the right lens combo for travel, vacation, sightseeing, street photography, etc. I have already decided to always take the 14-35 wide zoom on my trips, but undecided if it makes more sense to take the 24-105 or the heavier and bigger 24-70. Any thoughts? Much appreciated. Again, thanks for your reviews. They are gems.
Thanks for the detailed review - I own this lense and am pretty pleased with the images I took with it so far. However, I was somewhat concerned with it's built quality as the extension tube has some play compared to my RF 70-200 2.8. So I sent it to Canon to have it checked. Canon confirmed it to be 100% ok, and stated the relatively large play of it's extension tube is normal at the RF 24-105 4.0, and caused by it's design. Other than that, built quality is nice, too. It's a great lense for outdoor use whenever there are weight or luggage constraints (hikes etc.).
I was to asked Dustin the same concern with his copy. Mine has some play, and as yours, I checked in Canon service and they said it is normal. It is annoying though. Pretty unacceptable for such a premium optic. However, the achievements in image quality comparable to Ef versions is what surprises me the most. I sold the Ef versions because I had found the image quality being not attactive or useful. This one is in another league. So sharp and contrasty in almost every focal lenght and aperture. The bokeh also is outstanding for a 24-105.
@@irmasalla Well, I was a little surprised, too, but image quality is fine, and I had a longer call with the CPS service rep in Germany who checked my lense to be 100% healthy, and confirmed me this slight play is by design and no reason for concerns. @Dustin Abbott How did the two copies you had access to perform in that regard?
Excellent thorough review, thank you! I’d been thinking i’d go Nikon for my FF upgrade. But i’m back considering Canon so trying to decide on midrange zoom option.
I have also found using this F4 lens has made me a better photographer. I love my primes 35/50/85mm primes. But using this F4 really makes me consider my composition more, and look at everything in the frame, and not just rely on blowing out the background.
This was a great review Dustin and I really appreciate it. I am an enthusiast and I love this lens. I purchased it with a Canon RP and together they produced some great pictures. I have a Canon R6 Mark II on order and I hope the lens works as well even though it doesn’t have the megapixels as the R5. Again, thank you for a thorough review.
I have the EF lens with the Canon R body and adapter. Would I be better off having this lens? Not too happy with the EF performance with the R body. Thanks for any help.
Hi, super enjoy your reviews! Just would like to point out the description still refers to a different lens. Thanks for the reviews, these are really super helpful :]
I’m looking for a lens in the 24-70 bracket for landscapes , would you advise this or this for landscapes.. which has better iq for landscapes you think 🤔
If you are shooting at landscape apertures there won't be a big difference optically. I would probably go for this lens as it is cheaper and has a broader zoom range.
Thanks Dustin. Switched to R5 a few months back and I'm transitioning my EF to RF when my wallet allows. My goal is to get the following 3: 15-35 f2.8, 24-105f4, and the 100-500.
I have EOS R + EF 50 f/1.8 STM and EF 85 f/1.8 USM lenses for commercial photography. I need zoom for reporting and events. I can't decide between RF 24-105mm F4L and Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 G2 I had experience with Tamron and liked it. Will the Tamron be faster and sharper?
Has anyone used this lens in light rain? Does it tolerate hours of use in rain/drizzle/ice and snow? ...always concerned about this with lenses that extend as they zoom. I generally shoot web content outdoors fairly close focus at the longer end of the zoom range (was not happy with 24-70 reach). Maybe better to use the RF100 macro on rainy days and be stuck at 100mm? My sensor is 20Mpix, so closeup at 105mm will hopefully be more forgiving of the long end closeup optical characteristics noted in this excellent review.
I've used mine in terrible weather conditions as part of my casual landscape and travel lens. It would often start raining and snowing but that has never posed an issue, the lens still performs well. I own actually the EF version, though I don't see how the RF would be any less tough. I also hardly ever find 105mm to be softer on 26mp. If anything I've gotten great landscape pictures at F4 when zoomed in and never complained about the quality.
Used it since 2019 got my kit with EOS R and its definitely best travel zoom that can't fall off anywhere and anytime. Canon rise up price for $200 last year...
Thanks Interesting review How would you compare this lens to the canon EF 24-240? I have a 24-240 as a walk around lens, and is actually quite impressed with that. Yes it's lens full of compromises, but I would rate is general iq a touch above the old EF 24-105 f4 L, but I sold it long ago so I can't compare directly. (I also have the RF 24-70 +70-200 2,8)
Better for what, exactly? It is a little sharper and has a larger maximum aperture, though at the cost of reduced zoom range and a higher price. It really depends on what you are using it for.
@@DustinAbbottTWI In general or in corners? Some say the sharpness between 50mm and 150mm is better than the 24-105F4L but I just have no comparison to test it out. And just investing in it or a 24-70 is just not in the budget, will have to be sure what to get.
I wonder how much the price increase (at least in the US) has affected the "value" of this lens. It went from $1100 USD at launch to $1300 USD a few months ago.
That's a solid question. That $200 price increase is hard to swallow, particularly when you are accustomed to things going the opposite way after a few years.
Hi Dustin thank you for u informative reviews. HOW does this L lens compare at 35mm and 50mm compared to the non L rf 35 andc50 f1.8 in overall picture quality
Typically the primes will be a little sharper as they have been stopped down a fair bit, but this lens holds up very well at 35mm (a little less well at 50mm, though)
Hi Dustin, I am professional Videographer and have recently switched to Canon from Sony. I have been reading alot about USM lens being noisy while focus shift as compared to STM lenses. Fyi I have bought Canon R6. What do you recommend?
It's taken me four go's to get a decent copy of this lens. My previous examples exhibited distracting background 'blobs' of blurring when focused at less than infinity (a design flaw with moulded lens elements I think).
@@DustinAbbottTWI Most people probably wont notice it but I definitely did with my landscape photography and 'mid distance' focusing to maximise DoF. I did exhaustive testing and ultimately concluded if I wanted acceptable background sharpness, I had to always focus at infinity. [Tuned out I was getting fractionally sharper 'mid' foregrounds if I focused at infinity instead of the foreground!] Canon Australia recognised an issue, but Canon New Zealand (where I live and sent the lens) weren't interested. Based on hints of similar (but perfectly acceptable) background blurring with my EF 16-35/4, I believe Canon 'do something' when moulding, or gluing, their two part aspherical lens elements. My most recent Rf 24-105/4 (I currently own two!) is significantly better in this regard.
Is it the case where like "circular pulses" when focusing hunting? Seems like mine has that issue... thinking of upgrading to RF28-70 F2 cuz of this but not sure if giving up on the focal range is worth.
Did you find the zoom was stiff or tight? I bought my Canon R5 kit with the RF 24-105 f4 lens about 2 months ago and I find it to be stiff or tight. Is this normal for this lens?
Thank you so much for your prompt reply and for your input on your experience with the zoom. I have really been enjoying your reviews on camera equipment. There is just enough technical and a good amount of application. Your reviews have definitely helped me with my purchases. Thank you for the time and effort put into your reviews.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I do all sorts of photography and wanted a camera that would be capable of anything I am likely to want to shoot , I looked at the R6, R5 & R3, I rarely crop my pictures more than a few percent so I didn't need the higher MP count of the 5 and the 3 is such a great camera to handle, the 24-105 is my "walk around" lens
I own the EF 24-105mm mark ii and it continues to impress me with how consistent it is over a year after I bought it. As mentioned in your video, it's only at minimum focus that inage quality is degraded, but taking just a small step back and zooming in at F4 can produce some stunning images that almost look prime like. I've used it for street, landscape, portraits and even astro photography and it has always served me well. Hope that I can get my hands on the RF version someday.
I loved my EF 24-105 on my 5DMkII, but the R5 just shows up its fuzzy corners too much, so i never use it any more. It's always sharp at the centre, though, and the difference is jarring when the edges are important too.
Can I ask perhaps a silly question...when showing us sample photos that you're showing the quality of the lens in question. I notice all your photos are .DNG files can I ask why?? Why not Raw or Jpeg?
In 2024 can anyone advise if this is still a great lens? I know that’s not much of a question to work with but I would greatly appreciate an opinion. I currently have a Canon R7 and understand it won’t be a true 24-105 due to the APS-C sensor but this is my second camera and based on performance and specifications it was within my budget range and I love it! Thank you for a great review video too! Sterling job on the explanation! 👏
@@DustinAbbottTWIthank you, this has helped me to make my decision, it’s currently £1,349 with £300 off and £100 cash back so I think I’ll be buying this for sure! Thank you once again 🙏
No one in the comments has mentioned issues with the max aperture. I got this last week and I'm not happy with having to dramatically increase ISO inside the house. I actually ordered the 24-70 2.8L last week for this very reason. Is it that most of you don't shoot casually at home? Or maybe you're fine with cranking the ISO?
Well I'm fine with cranking the ISO, I mean if you have quality troubles with 1600 or 3200 ISO on a EOS R body, the problem is not the lens, perhaps you are pixel peeping too much? If you need -and can afford- a 28-70 f2.8, by all means get it, they are wonderful, but expecting an f4 lens to have f2.8 performance is not the kind of failure this review should focus on.
F/4 is f/4 no matter what lens it is. Can't expect more aperture from a lens that says its f/4. Overall it's a fantastic all around lens...assuming you don't expect f/2.8 light performance from an f/4 lens.
Ok, ok, I realize what a dumb comment it was. I've had my 2.8 G2 lenses for so long I've taken them for granted. Thanks for the reality check everyone.
Debating with myself on whether I should get this for my R6ii only or to go with the EF version 2 as suggested by Christopher Frost in his review of this lens. In the 2nd case, maybe I could use it with my m50ii as well-with adapter or SB (and increase the aperture by 1 stop to 2.8-for low light performance) and therefore usable in both cams, more flexible IMHO, but then I've not seen any samples with the SB on, can't say what the IQ would be like 🤔 What about lens creep? Has it been addressed in the RF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM? Please help me decide 😢 Christopher Frost's review here: ua-cam.com/video/dYaPpqmkZms/v-deo.html
…I can see that’s a great allrounder, but I also see that’s kinda boring. Due to the slow apparature, pictures look a bit standard, might be ok for landscape photography but is a no go for portrait shooting imo…
@@DustinAbbottTWI When the price enters into the equation, it becomes the best value for money for me. The alternative is to buy two or three lenses, or at least sacrifice part of the focal length. In this case, you will also pay twice as much to buy one lens.
I had an EF 24-104 F4 which was never Sharp wide open, which was quite disappointing, and i preferred to use other lenses instead. I got the RF version last week and... It's A LOT better. super sharp even at F4. This truly feels like an L lens, unlike the EF version i used to own.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Of course I didnt watch 28mins on the worlds most nothing to say lens. Its great that there is nothing to say about it. Its just fine :)
I bought the RF 24-105 F4L as my first RF lens two years ago when I bought an R6. I soon sold my Tamron 24-70 F/2.8 and only rarely use my Canon EF 16-35 F/4L anymore.
The RF 24-105 quickly became my favorite lens, maybe ever. Today, I mainly use it on an R5 as my go-to for landscapes, family snapshots, travel, and just walking around. It's brilliant. I tell new entrants to the RF system to make this the first lens they buy.
Interesting. I'm considering the same thing as I also have the Tamron 2.8 G2. I got the R6 with this lens last week, and I quickly found indoor photos were very difficult without going to 5000+ iso. Do you not use it much inside the house?
@@nickbailey202 my Tamron was the original. The Canon is lighter, sharper, and faster-focusing. I do shoot indoors without a flash sometimes, up to ISO 12,800. My main body nowadays is the R5. I do have and use a Speedlite 600EX II when necessary. Any lens is gonna need help at some point if there just isn't enough light. I also use Topaz DeNoise to clean up high ISO noise. The RF 24-105 F/4L is fantastic and I can't recommend it enough.
How the 24-105 performs on r5 compared to r6. I’m deciding which bundle to order r5 with 24-105 or r6 … thanks
@@Tomek1Oko if that's your question, just compare the bodies and how their features fit your needs and budget. All the native RF lenses will perform equally on either body. Any difference in image, focus, etc. will be because of the body.
better than EF 24-70 / 2.8 version II? I´ve spent lot of time looking for reviews and keeping my 24-70 seem better than invest much more money to newer one.
Had an eos R5, went to a sony A7RV, and now im back to the eos R5 and gonna stay at canon. I missed the lovely canon colors, and also the body, ergonomics etc.... Never gonna switch again!
If only Canon would open up to third party development. I love my R5, too, but don't love the lens options for it.
Canon ergonomics are unbeatable.
@@DustinAbbottTWIthey have now! Kinda. Yaaay :D
@@DustinAbbottTWI I know but still, i would buy canon lenses..... I dont smoke, drink, so a little more money to a lens is not bad i think
Same here. Had a Sony A7RV but never quite liked it and upon testing out a Canon R5 I instantly sold all my Sony gear and bought an R5 along with a few L lenses. Zero regrets
I'm really liking this long term reviews, now I'm getting curious to see the long term review of the Sony 24-105 G too! It's a bit old now but I think still holds up well as an all rounder lens.
Thanks for the feedback.
Thanks！ This review is really helpful.
I'm glad to hear it.
I have this lens. A great all arounder really. I go between this and the 35mm 1.8rf as my travel lens. Depends on the weather and what I feel like that day.
Glad you are enjoying it
I got this lens on amazon at the same time I bought the Eos R a few days after its release. I got it for less than €1000. Since then they have tried to buy it from me on several occasions. Lack of stock and continuous increases. Today I consider it to be a perfect lens for the R system. It is the lens that I always wear, for any occasion, recreational, professional, it doesn't matter. Using the rest of the RF lenses if the purpose demands it. But the RF24105lf4 always goes with me.
It's absurd how the price has risen on this lens.
Thanks!
My pleasure - thanks for the donation!
I would love to see an RF 24-70 F4L IS t replace my EF version. Less zoom, but better IQ and a limited “macro” mode that sometimes cam be very useful.
Looking at this one. The only other normal focl range lens that I have is the 28-70 f2. Its an interesting lens but its huge and not that well suited for walk about and travel use. I wonder if this 24-105mm lens + the 50mm or new 35mm prime makes more sense than the 28-70.
That's an interesting question, and as I haven't had a chance to test the 28-70 (getting a loaner has been pretty much impossible), I can't give a definitive answer. This 24-105 is a very nice walkaround lens with a flexible focal length and reasonable size. I do love the 50mm F1.2L, and the new 35L looks promising. Those could be good alternatives, but that comes down to your individual need.
What a great review! Thanks so much for taking the time to offer your advice and experience. Your narration and video can't be beat. Really appreciate it.
Glad it was helpful!
Hello
Just an absolute informative video regarding the RF 24-105 f/4. This is still Canon’s Swiss Army knife or Leatherman of lenses. Your review helps me as I just purchased a Canon R6 MKII and was thinking about buying this lens. Since I have a 5D MKIV & 90D, I’ll adapt my older EF lenses until I can get my money right. I’m also considering purchasing the EF 24-70 f/2.8 (L) II USM and adapt it for the R6 MKII. The 90D works well with the MKII 24-70mm given its sensitivity to certain lenses and its pixel density. Well you’ve given me more data so I can make an informed decision.
May you & your family have a blessed and safe Christmas Holiday Season.
Thank you. Merry Christmas to you as well.
Considering that 80D with just one L lens (ef 100-400 mark2) and a few efs lens was my gear, I am pleased with the eos r and the rf24-105 L. I even tried Astro with it and at iso 3200, the resulting images were superb compared to the crop sensor option (efs 24mm). The larger sensor is impressive. I’ll keep using the r until it quits for my casual usage and will be buying the rf 70-200 f4L zoom soon. I h have not used my efs lenses with my eos r because of the loss of resolution. Thanks for your video.
Enjoy!
Bought it some months ago for general purpose photography and more for video on an R6ii - all the points you mentioned in your fine review are 100% consistent with my experience! Except the macro range this lens delivers on a consistently high level - especially on 24 MPix - and the macro deficit can be worked around by using f/4 for dreamy look with main subject close to center and f/8 if you need much higher correction.
Will pair with an APS-C-body with EF 100-400 to have 24...105 + 160...640mm (in FF terms) range - for video too.
And the RF 24-105 shines for video due to its very quiet AF - zooming isn't that quiet, at least with my copy. I think that the air has to pass some filter for dust protectioin and it makes a silent but audible whining noise.
An all purpose zoom lens that convinced me as zoom hater especially because it includes the 105mm which is my "standard" focal length.
That's a very fair conclusion.
I bought this lens partly as a travel zoom (my workhorse lens is the 28-70, and that is both heavy and conspicuous), but more primarily as a video lens, and for that it is fantastic.
- Small and light enough to mount on most gimbals, and with in-lens stabilisation so competent that you often won't need to. In fact, I can often leave the tripod at home too.
- Smooth, silent, and accurate autofocus.
- Perfectly sharp enough for outstanding 4K footage.
- Great handling making it a joy to use.
- Coupled with the excellent quality 4K crop-video option on the R5, gives all the focal lengths you could want for most shooting situations, from 24 all the way to 170-ish.
And for me personally, I find that being limited to a max aperture of f/4 keeps me from opening up the lens too much and completely melting my backgrounds. Shallow depth of field can be a useful tool, and I love to play with it in photography, but in video I find it to more often be a distraction. Showing the environment that your subject/character is in can provide much more richness to the scene, and allows for more emphasis to be put on composition.
If you're a video-maker thinking of working with the Canon RF system, the 16mm, the 35mm, and the 24-105mm are all wonderful and relatively affordable options that Canon has provided. (I'm sure the 50mm f/1.8 is also nice to have, but I can't vouch for it myself as I haven't had the need to pick one up).
Thanks. I have the 35mm and the 24-105mm f4 (shooting with an R6). I am thinking of getting the 16mm. Are the distortion and vignetting in the Raw images easy to correct? (Talking about the 16mm f2.8)
@@cjm8160 I'll answer as best I can. Yes and no. I use Lightroom, and that has a correction profile for the 16mm, so it's very easy to correct for the distortion and the vignetting. However, personally, I don't love Adobe's correction profile. If you shoot Raw and JPG and compare, the way Canon handles the distortion in-camera is more pleasing to me. You can fiddle with the corrections yourself (including cropping slightly), or experiment with different lens profiles to see how they look, but that might feel like too much hassle. But like I said, that's a personal complaint, you might like Adobe's corrections just fine! And to be honest, it's such a minor thing that most people would never notice.
In general, the 16mm does have bad extreme corners. But again, most people would never notice in most shots, and if you are bothered by it in a particular shot, you could use the lens as an 18mm, crop a little in post and be left with more acceptable corners.
I mainly use the 16mm for three things:
video, where the in-camera corrections are baked-in (and the extreme corners are cropped off anyway with a 16:9 aspect ratio).
shooting jpg, when I don't want to worry about about doing much post-processing and I'm mainly interested in playing with that unique ultra-wide angle look.
or shooting those few scenarios where you just absolutely need a wide angle, such as capturing an entire event space. The vast majority of my photography is shot at >28mm (with most being between 50mm-100mm).
The 16mm is just such a great tool to have in my bag, as it weighs almost nothing and takes so little space, but it can do something that none of my other lenses are capable of in those situations where I need it. You'll know yourself if you find yourself wishing you could shoot wider than 24mm often enough to be worth grabbing the 16mm.
I purchased this lens in the EF mount and chose it over the 24-70 f2.8. I liked the extra reach and with my full frame camera the f4 aperture did not bother me. I think it is a superb lens. No regrets.
Believe me, having shot the EF version for over a decade on a 5DII, and now having shot the RF for a year on the R6; The difference is night and day. I did prefer the build of the old EF though.
@@Aureas133 how is it night and day ?
@@creativegreats The EF has noticeable more color fringing and distortion.
@@Aureas133 what’s does color fringing and distortion mean ?
@@creativegreats If you watch the full video you will see it is explained very well...
I regard mine as my "Day to Day" lens with my R6 and my other RF and EF lenses for specialty shots. I wish you well .
When we went to Japan for two weeks I only took my EOS R and RF 24-105 f4, down from my 5DIV, EF 24-70 & 70-200 f2.8 plus 50 f1.4 (that's -1.8gk). I found myself lacking only 2% of the time, but found myself relieved of an unnecessary burden 98% of the time. I even managed to snap a quite nice portrait with it inside "teamLab Planets". :)
That's the value of a lens like this
Yet another good review DA. You have touched upon my main gripes with Canon, the lack of 3rd party competition, and their high price structure. I have wanted to switch from DSLR to mirrorless for a few years now - but what I really want is a Sony A7IV in a Canon Body with the Tamron glass. Sony has just done their homework well WRT cost v specification and it is an area that Canon continues to disappoint.
That's a good summation - Sony tech in a Canon body using Tamron glass. Sounds good to me.
Canon Cameras and lenses are made in Japan. Sony cameras are made in China/Thailand and Tamron lenses are made in China.
Sony owns 15% of Tamron and used to own a minority share of Olympus.
Sigma makes their own Brand cameras too and is a founding member of the Leica L mount alliance. Sony and Sigma both have patents for they sensors which they won't license Canon.
Why do you expect Canon to commit suicide by allowing unfair competition?
@@set3777 my brand new Canon RF 100-400mm lens is made in TAIWAN.
Get your facts straight…
@@auxmike718 It is true. Some Lower cost Canon lenses are make in Taiwan and Malaysia.
Third party EF lenses work perfectly with an adapter
Hi Dustin... first thanks for all your insightful reviews. I am "re-born" semi-pro photographer and recently upgraded to the Canon mirrorless system (R6 II to be precise.) I initially thought of keeping the majority of my EF lenses, but decided to sell them and migrate to the RF glass.
So far I have in my arsenal this lens (RF24-105mm F4) as well as the RF 14-35mm and the RF 70-200 F4. But I am thinking of adding the RF 24-70 F2.8, but not sure yet. I know it is also an excellent all-purpose walkaround lens like the 24-105.
My question is if I should buy the 24-70 F2.8 or not. Now that I am on pre-retirement age, we are travelling more around the world and the intent is to use the right lens combo for travel, vacation, sightseeing, street photography, etc. I have already decided to always take the 14-35 wide zoom on my trips, but undecided if it makes more sense to take the 24-105 or the heavier and bigger 24-70.
Any thoughts? Much appreciated. Again, thanks for your reviews. They are gems.
For travel I would personally stick with this lens. That combined with the 70-200mm is a great travel combo.
It’s my first lense … just bought a R6II with it… had for 2 weeks and it’s been fun. Takes awesome closeups and depth is versatile
Nice! Enjoy!
Thanks for the detailed review - I own this lense and am pretty pleased with the images I took with it so far. However, I was somewhat concerned with it's built quality as the extension tube has some play compared to my RF 70-200 2.8. So I sent it to Canon to have it checked. Canon confirmed it to be 100% ok, and stated the relatively large play of it's extension tube is normal at the RF 24-105 4.0, and caused by it's design. Other than that, built quality is nice, too. It's a great lense for outdoor use whenever there are weight or luggage constraints (hikes etc.).
I was to asked Dustin the same concern with his copy. Mine has some play, and as yours, I checked in Canon service and they said it is normal. It is annoying though. Pretty unacceptable for such a premium optic. However, the achievements in image quality comparable to Ef versions is what surprises me the most. I sold the Ef versions because I had found the image quality being not attactive or useful. This one is in another league. So sharp and contrasty in almost every focal lenght and aperture. The bokeh also is outstanding for a 24-105.
@@irmasalla Well, I was a little surprised, too, but image quality is fine, and I had a longer call with the CPS service rep in Germany who checked my lense to be 100% healthy, and confirmed me this slight play is by design and no reason for concerns. @Dustin Abbott How did the two copies you had access to perform in that regard?
There is a minor amount of play if I grasp the inner barrel and try to move it, but I'm not concerned by what I see on my copy.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks Dustin for taking the time to check and reply - so it seems indeed normal and 'working as designed'.
Excellent thorough review, thank you! I’d been thinking i’d go Nikon for my FF upgrade. But i’m back considering Canon so trying to decide on midrange zoom option.
Glad it was helpful!
What lens would you suggest indoor video and photography with R5? I like to videography indoor events as well (dog shows etc..).
I have 70-200 2.8 rf but would you suggest this with that?
I would say yes to the 24-105mm F4L IS. I use it fairly regularly for video on the R5 and it does well.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you for the suggest! Btw, Do you think the autofocus is enough "snappy" to keep up with the moving dogs? :)
I have also found using this F4 lens has made me a better photographer. I love my primes 35/50/85mm primes. But using this F4 really makes me consider my composition more, and look at everything in the frame, and not just rely on blowing out the background.
That’s a fair point
This was a great review Dustin and I really appreciate it. I am an enthusiast and I love this lens. I purchased it with a Canon RP and together they produced some great pictures. I have a Canon R6 Mark II on order and I hope the lens works as well even though it doesn’t have the megapixels as the R5. Again, thank you for a thorough review.
Glad it was helpful!
How does it work?
I have the EF lens with the Canon R body and adapter. Would I be better off having this lens? Not too happy with the EF performance with the R body. Thanks for any help.
I think it is worth the upgrade, myself. The native lens works great and will save you some space in the bag.
Will you be testing the 24-105 2.8 version?
I've been trying to source one for over a year. No luck thus far.
Hi, super enjoy your reviews! Just would like to point out the description still refers to a different lens.
Thanks for the reviews, these are really super helpful :]
I’m looking for a lens in the 24-70 bracket for landscapes , would you advise this or this for landscapes.. which has better iq for landscapes you think 🤔
If you are shooting at landscape apertures there won't be a big difference optically. I would probably go for this lens as it is cheaper and has a broader zoom range.
Thanks Dustin. Switched to R5 a few months back and I'm transitioning my EF to RF when my wallet allows. My goal is to get the following 3: 15-35 f2.8, 24-105f4, and the 100-500.
All solid lenses. Pricy, but they'll last you well for years, too.
…why would your fastest lens be the landscape one? Wide angle you hardly shoot wide open… Don’t think you got it right…
I would also favor the 14-35 F4 in this combo.
I have EOS R + EF 50 f/1.8 STM and EF 85 f/1.8 USM lenses for commercial photography. I need zoom for reporting and events. I can't decide between RF 24-105mm F4L and Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 G2 I had experience with Tamron and liked it. Will the Tamron be faster and sharper?
The Tamron will have the faster aperture, but the Canon will be faster to focus. The Tamron is a bit sharper
Has anyone used this lens in light rain? Does it tolerate hours of use in rain/drizzle/ice and snow? ...always concerned about this with lenses that extend as they zoom. I generally shoot web content outdoors fairly close focus at the longer end of the zoom range (was not happy with 24-70 reach). Maybe better to use the RF100 macro on rainy days and be stuck at 100mm? My sensor is 20Mpix, so closeup at 105mm will hopefully be more forgiving of the long end closeup optical characteristics noted in this excellent review.
I've used mine in terrible weather conditions as part of my casual landscape and travel lens. It would often start raining and snowing but that has never posed an issue, the lens still performs well. I own actually the EF version, though I don't see how the RF would be any less tough. I also hardly ever find 105mm to be softer on 26mp. If anything I've gotten great landscape pictures at F4 when zoomed in and never complained about the quality.
@@EddySawaya8637 Thanks!
wonder if i should keep my sigma24-70 2.8 art n loose 30+mm or sell it and get the 24-105 f4 and loose some light but gain the 30mm..
That's always the difficult debate between those two lenses.
Bravo. Tell me please? what camera and lens do you use? Thanks in advance..
Sony Alpha 1 and Tamron 35-150mm. You can find that information at the end of every video on screen.
You should make a t-shirt with "And as a byprodcut of that..." :) Great video! Think you got the wrong text under the video = RF 100-400.
Used it since 2019 got my kit with EOS R and its definitely best travel zoom that can't fall off anywhere and anytime. Canon rise up price for $200 last year...
It's awesome in daylight and sunny days. Not so much at night time and low light situations.
Yes, that pretty much true of all F4 lenses.
what do you think of the ef version used thanks,
It's still a decent lens, so if you can live with using an adapter all the time, it could work.
i have a t3i would i still need a adapter thanks@@DustinAbbottTWI
Very informative!
Glad it was helpful!
Another fabulous review. Thanks!!
How come you don’t just get the rf 24-70 2.8 over this 24-105 f4?
I've got fast primes - I wanted the flexibility of focal range (and half the price) for a travel type lens.
Thanks
Interesting review
How would you compare this lens to the canon EF 24-240?
I have a 24-240 as a walk around lens, and is actually quite impressed with that. Yes it's lens full of compromises, but I would rate is general iq a touch above the old EF 24-105 f4 L, but I sold it long ago so I can't compare directly. (I also have the RF 24-70 +70-200 2,8)
Hi there, while the 24-105L has a reduced zoom range, obviously, it is considerably better optically than the 24-240.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks 😀
Hey Dustin I am a patron and was wondering how yo log in to your app?
Hmmm, I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm not in control of the Patreon app, so you may need to direct that question to them.
Hello Dustin, is the RF 24-70 2.8 much better?
Better for what, exactly? It is a little sharper and has a larger maximum aperture, though at the cost of reduced zoom range and a higher price. It really depends on what you are using it for.
Do you think its worth going for the 24-105F4L when I'm shooting around F8 with my RF24-240in terms of sharpness/image quality?
Yes. the 24-240mm never really achieves good sharpness even when stopped down.
@@DustinAbbottTWI In general or in corners? Some say the sharpness between 50mm and 150mm is better than the 24-105F4L but I just have no comparison to test it out. And just investing in it or a 24-70 is just not in the budget, will have to be sure what to get.
I wonder how much the price increase (at least in the US) has affected the "value" of this lens. It went from $1100 USD at launch to $1300 USD a few months ago.
That's a solid question. That $200 price increase is hard to swallow, particularly when you are accustomed to things going the opposite way after a few years.
Hi Dustin thank you for u informative reviews. HOW does this L lens compare at 35mm and 50mm compared to the non L rf 35 andc50 f1.8 in overall picture quality
Typically the primes will be a little sharper as they have been stopped down a fair bit, but this lens holds up very well at 35mm (a little less well at 50mm, though)
Hi Dustin, I am professional Videographer and have recently switched to Canon from Sony. I have been reading alot about USM lens being noisy while focus shift as compared to STM lenses. Fyi I have bought Canon R6. What do you recommend?
On RF "USM" is actually usually Nano-USM (as in this case), which is actually faster, quieter, and smoother than just STM lenses.
It's taken me four go's to get a decent copy of this lens. My previous examples exhibited distracting background 'blobs' of blurring when focused at less than infinity (a design flaw with moulded lens elements I think).
That's not encouraging.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Most people probably wont notice it but I definitely did with my landscape photography and 'mid distance' focusing to maximise DoF.
I did exhaustive testing and ultimately concluded if I wanted acceptable background sharpness, I had to always focus at infinity. [Tuned out I was getting fractionally sharper 'mid' foregrounds if I focused at infinity instead of the foreground!]
Canon Australia recognised an issue, but Canon New Zealand (where I live and sent the lens) weren't interested.
Based on hints of similar (but perfectly acceptable) background blurring with my EF 16-35/4, I believe Canon 'do something' when moulding, or gluing, their two part aspherical lens elements.
My most recent Rf 24-105/4 (I currently own two!) is significantly better in this regard.
Is it the case where like "circular pulses" when focusing hunting? Seems like mine has that issue... thinking of upgrading to RF28-70 F2 cuz of this but not sure if giving up on the focal range is worth.
How did this lens do in video mode?
It's good. AF is smooth.
Exceptional review, as always.
Thank you.
Did you find the zoom was stiff or tight? I bought my Canon R5 kit with the RF 24-105 f4 lens about 2 months ago and I find it to be stiff or tight. Is this normal for this lens?
Hmmm, I don't find it unusually tight on either my test copy or my personal copy.
Thank you so much for your prompt reply and for your input on your experience with the zoom. I have really been enjoying your reviews on camera equipment. There is just enough technical and a good amount of application. Your reviews have definitely helped me with my purchases. Thank you for the time and effort put into your reviews.
I had the R and then upgraded to the R3, the 24-105 f4 is rarely off the camera
That actually surprises me, considering the R3 is a sports camera and this really isn't a sports lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I do all sorts of photography and wanted a camera that would be capable of anything I am likely to want to shoot , I looked at the R6, R5 & R3, I rarely crop my pictures more than a few percent so I didn't need the higher MP count of the 5 and the 3 is such a great camera to handle, the 24-105 is my "walk around" lens
I own the EF 24-105mm mark ii and it continues to impress me with how consistent it is over a year after I bought it. As mentioned in your video, it's only at minimum focus that inage quality is degraded, but taking just a small step back and zooming in at F4 can produce some stunning images that almost look prime like. I've used it for street, landscape, portraits and even astro photography and it has always served me well. Hope that I can get my hands on the RF version someday.
It's a useful lens, for sure.
so it sucks at 24mm?
@@BrianHallmond not at all! It's not quite perfect but consistently great at all focal points and apertures.
I loved my EF 24-105 on my 5DMkII, but the R5 just shows up its fuzzy corners too much, so i never use it any more. It's always sharp at the centre, though, and the difference is jarring when the edges are important too.
Can I ask perhaps a silly question...when showing us sample photos that you're showing the quality of the lens in question. I notice all your photos are .DNG files can I ask why?? Why not Raw or Jpeg?
I convert all my RAW files to .DNG for a variety of reasons.
In 2024 can anyone advise if this is still a great lens? I know that’s not much of a question to work with but I would greatly appreciate an opinion. I currently have a Canon R7 and understand it won’t be a true 24-105 due to the APS-C sensor but this is my second camera and based on performance and specifications it was within my budget range and I love it! Thank you for a great review video too! Sterling job on the explanation! 👏
As far as being a quality multipurpose zoom, I'm not sure there's a better option. I own one and continue to find it useful.
@@DustinAbbottTWIthank you, this has helped me to make my decision, it’s currently £1,349 with £300 off and £100 cash back so I think I’ll be buying this for sure! Thank you once again 🙏
No one in the comments has mentioned issues with the max aperture. I got this last week and I'm not happy with having to dramatically increase ISO inside the house. I actually ordered the 24-70 2.8L last week for this very reason.
Is it that most of you don't shoot casually at home? Or maybe you're fine with cranking the ISO?
Hmm... it says on the label that it is an F4 lens, so I wonder why people would be concerned with this piece of info.
Well I'm fine with cranking the ISO, I mean if you have quality troubles with 1600 or 3200 ISO on a EOS R body, the problem is not the lens, perhaps you are pixel peeping too much?
If you need -and can afford- a 28-70 f2.8, by all means get it, they are wonderful, but expecting an f4 lens to have f2.8 performance is not the kind of failure this review should focus on.
F/4 is f/4 no matter what lens it is. Can't expect more aperture from a lens that says its f/4. Overall it's a fantastic all around lens...assuming you don't expect f/2.8 light performance from an f/4 lens.
Ok, ok, I realize what a dumb comment it was. I've had my 2.8 G2 lenses for so long I've taken them for granted. Thanks for the reality check everyone.
I would like a cross compare with Nikkor Z 24-120 f4 S
I'm afraid that I don't do Nikon reviews.
The RF lense prices are insane. And isn't canon blocking Tamron etc from making RF lenses?
That is not definitely known, but I suspect that it is the case.
Sony owns 15% of Tamron. Why should Canon allow Tamron to make RF lenses?
Demand Sony sell away their Tamron shares FIRST.
@@set3777 ah ok, didn't know that
The new RF 24-105 F2.8 perhaps?
I would like to review it, but getting Canon loaners has proven difficult.
Thanks for the follow up review. Very well done.
Glad it was helpful!
27:04 28-70mm f2L
Debating with myself on whether I should get this for my R6ii only or to go with the EF version 2 as suggested by Christopher Frost in his review of this lens. In the 2nd case, maybe I could use it with my m50ii as well-with adapter or SB (and increase the aperture by 1 stop to 2.8-for low light performance) and therefore usable in both cams, more flexible IMHO, but then I've not seen any samples with the SB on, can't say what the IQ would be like 🤔 What about lens creep? Has it been addressed in the RF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM? Please help me decide 😢
Christopher Frost's review here:
ua-cam.com/video/dYaPpqmkZms/v-deo.html
I like this lens better, myself, for a number of reasons, but I do see the logic if you'd like to adapt to two different cameras.
not really important but are you shooting in clog and not color grading that much or is it just my monitor?
I actually typically film on Sony and tend to use the Sony cinestyle profile which has a slightly flatter tone curve
@@DustinAbbottTWI that makes sense, do you do any correction in post them or do you prefer that slightly flat tone?
Dustin Abbott is speaking metric. Brilliant.
:)
24x105 How money
If you are asking the cost, that depends on where you live. I recommend you do a Google search for a retailer in your country.
…I can see that’s a great allrounder, but I also see that’s kinda boring. Due to the slow apparature, pictures look a bit standard, might be ok for landscape photography but is a no go for portrait shooting imo…
That's a fair assessment.
Looking your Videos because i`m happy to see my old 10.- Deutsch Mark Scheins ... 🙂
I hear that quite often.
Found one for $399 I snagged that so quick...
I guess so! That's an amazing price.
where did you find one with that price?
Best lens ever ♡♡♡
I'm not sure I'd say "best", but certainly one of the most useful.
@@DustinAbbottTWI When the price enters into the equation, it becomes the best value for money for me. The alternative is to buy two or three lenses, or at least sacrifice part of the focal length. In this case, you will also pay twice as much to buy one lens.
The whole RF lens line is criminally expensive!
Makes me want to stick with used EF lenses and use the $99 adapter instead…
Hard to argue with that.
I use the expensive adaptor with inbuilt polariser, and am buying everyone else's used EF lenses I've always wanted!
Video starts @ 6:00 mark…..
Only if you want no context or reason for the review.
I almost never use my 24-105L EF lens because it was just never sharp. This one doesn't seem to be much better so you saved me some money.
Glad to help out...in a backwards way ;)
The EF should have been sharp in the centre, at least! I was OK with the edges on a 5DMkII, but on an R5 they are awful!
I had an EF 24-104 F4 which was never Sharp wide open, which was quite disappointing, and i preferred to use other lenses instead. I got the RF version last week and... It's A LOT better. super sharp even at F4. This truly feels like an L lens, unlike the EF version i used to own.
I have a perfect copy.:)
Lucky you!
Price plz
That depends on your market. You'll have to check that out locally.
save yourself 28mins.. it is very good but a nify fifty has more sxy DOF.
If you think that covers everything covered in this review, you probably didn't actually watch it.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Of course I didnt watch 28mins on the worlds most nothing to say lens. Its great that there is nothing to say about it. Its just fine :)
Please don't ever shoot fireworks on auto exposure again.
Nice bit of (inaccurate) condescension there, Steve.
Please translate your videos to Arabic
Paying for translation services gets expensive. I'd love to have all languages, but it would cost more than what these videos earn.
Not informative
Unlike this comment, that really elaborates on what the issues are.