Canon RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 review BEST RF kit zoom vs f4L vs 24-240!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- Find out why the RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 STM is the best kit zoom for Canon RF cameras!
Check price at B&H: bhpho.to/3arO5XH // WEX: tidd.ly/3ohIVl6
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/...
Gordon's In Camera book at Amazon: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Like Cameralabs? Get the merch: redbubble.com/...
#canon #eos #rf
Find out why the RF 24-105mm f4-7.1 STM is the best kit zoom for Canon RF cameras!
Check price at B&H: bhpho.to/3arO5XH // WEX: tidd.ly/3ohIVl6
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Gordon's In Camera book at Amazon: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Like Cameralabs? Get the merch: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop
#canon #eos #rf
Instablaster
@@leandrodominic5822 Good goal, I'll buy it
The 24-105 STM is excellent for the price and weight. Very happy with my copy. I much prefer it to the heavy L version. The STM is great to carry around all day without breaking your back and delivers fantastic results.
Just chose this as my Canon EOS R kit lens, but against the advice of several of my pro photog friends. Glad I did! Appreciate this confirmation.
Your pro buddies can buy L lenses for you if they don't like what you buy. It's not likely they'll offer to spend L money on you.
Thank you Gordon! I have the 24-105 4-7.1 together with 35 and 50 1.8. For me they work perfectly.
This is the perfect combo. Zoom for flexibility and primes for low light and wide open photography. People want everything, but they don't know how to use anything and complain all day long.
13:36 - BINGO!!! This is why I only would use the 24-105 at F8 for middle of the day, while hiking/quick snap shots...
I own the RF24-105L and it is sharp edge to edge at 24mm f4!!! On my RP it is absolutely stunning especially at 35mm so much so my prime never gets used anymore and even my 16-35 F4L which is also very sharp hardly gets used as well as the RF is better from 24-35mm... This is from side by side tests....
I bought EOS R with RF 24-105 F4L a week ago and at 24mm it definitely needs correction for barrel distortion. I tested it in Lightroom and Capture One Pro on a 4K panel with 100% of SRGB coverage. My corners are sharp at 24mm F8 and the corner sharpness at F4 is good. Nothing blurry like you have. I will be renting lens and testing them myself before buying from now on. There is too much discrepancies between many reviews.
I got this lens with an EOS R the other day and I am really having fun with it. We are still in lockdown here in Melbourne, Australia so the macro function is keeping me entertained around the house.
I am not rich (I actually rent my camera body's at a very reasonable price) and photography is just one of my hobbies so I applaud Canon for releasing some full frame lenses that are reasonably priced for people like me even though this is still such a new system.
It's still one of my favourite RF lenses...
I ordered the camera the canon eos R with this lens and I bought the 70-200 RF / 2.8 as well waiting to arrive Thursday can’t wait
First, another enjoyable review.
In my own tests, the 24-240 is very sharp in the center even wide open. It exhibits a bit "different" behavior than traditional lenses in the corners, particularly as the wide end.
Effectively. as you get to the corners, the image is squeezed into about half the horizontal and vertical area as in the center. It does not fill the frame without distortion correction as seen when opening in say Adobe RAW without correction. After distortion correction, the image has about 1/2 the resolution horizontally and vertically as it does in the center. Still, the image in the corners has good contrast with extremely little chroma aberrations in the corners. BUT, no amount of stopping down will significantly improve the resolution as the resolution was lost by the lens effectively reducing the image in the corners.
A big question is what happens if you have a higher resolution sensor such as the R5? I have not seen this addressed anywhere. As best I can find, the 24-240 has been tested on the R and RP but not the R5 which came out after the 24-240. If all the lens is doing is reducing the image in the corners, then more pixels would give about the same percentage resolution loss. bit still more resolution with a higher resolution sensor. But if the lens is doing other "damage" to the image, then stopping down would improve the sharpness.
I think an extremely interesting comparison would be to compare the RF24-240 on say an R6, RP, or R versus on an R5.
I've been surprised at the versatility and quality out of 24-105 f4-7.1. I reluctantly bought it with a 70 200 to cover telephoto range and looks like I might not have made a bad decision at all
Interesting results and confirms that Canons low priced lenses are really good for real use!
By the way: I like that I have chosen the RF 35 Macro as my "standard lens" for the RP - just zooming isn't that easy :)
I love that RF 35!
@@cameralabs same here! I’ve just bought this month an EOS RP with the 35mm because of your recommendations and I think for a photography newbie like me it’s the best I could buy. I cover several genres of photography
@@cameralabs better than 50mm rf?
I thought you were joking saying the kit lens was good because of all the crappy Sony kit lenses that I had: 18-55, 16-50, 16-70 Zeiss, 24-70 Zeiss. Then I got this lens because it was cheap and sharp and newer. It is as good as you and Ken Rockwell are saying. All the new RF lenses are great. I think Canon did the right thing: Unleash small good enough primes and very good kit lenses with the newer RF mount. Not like Sony's cheap and crappy offerings, letting 3rd party release a ton of average performers. This controls quality. Although, I think Canon has to refine the RF bodies to be more user friendly, not having a million options to get the colors and brightness of the exposure just right. (my R8 shoots way to high exposure .3 to .67 too high all the time) Since phone cameras are doing computational AI, reducing highlights to appear having more dynamic range, I didn't know Canon had Highlight Tone Priority to do the same. World's of difference. Just make it default already.
I bought this lens a few months ago off the strength of your review, Gordon, and it’s stellar. I had the F4 L version, but this is so much lighter and easier to lug around - and perfect for shooting video with my R6.
Exactly, it's a lot better than many people think
@@cameralabs Yep - just like to RF 100-400, which punches well above its weight. 🥊
IMO, the RF 24-240mm is the ultimate best kit lens for Canon RP. You get an USM (same as the 24-105mm F4L), slightly better image quality than the 24-105mm STM at corners, twice the zoom range, and higher aperture (F6.3 vs F7.1) at max zoom. It is also slightly cheaper than the 24-105mm F4L.
I really liked the 24-240 but the range does mean the lens itself is fairly large. I really liked the lighter weight of the 24-105 STM, but it's great to have choices!
@@cameralabs Yes, my 24-105 STM arrived today and it is really lightweight and compact.
It was surprising for me that the 24-240 actually held up very well against the 24-105 4-7.1. I expected the lens with the smaller focal range to have better image quality. But the results from the 24-105 L are even more surprising. Most other reviews praise the very even performance to the corners at 24 mm wide open. Looking at the sample image with the guitars from your Flickr album of the EOS R review, real world images still look good in the corners. Regarding the portrait comparison at 105 mm, I would consider the F4 lens to be significantly better. it provides a very nice separation from the background, while the F7.1 image is too busy for my personal taste. Thank you very much for all the work you have done with these lenses!
You're welcome! I agree the 24-105 f4L had a shallower DOF, but not much better - the 85mm f2 would have been much better if you want greater separation.
The F4L version might not seem that sexy in terms of specs or technical tests, but it continues to impress me in the real world. I'd say it's the best combination of size/weight (and this one is actually lighter/smaller than the EF version...), price, usefulness, and quality. It has a really nice popping rendering.
I'd say almost 50 percent of shots I make with it are at 105mm F4, including video in Crop mode where it becomes 160mm, and I wouldn't want to have F7.1 here. It's just so useful and I find I don't often need to switch lenses. It focuses smooth, fast, and quietly, as opposed to my stumbling 35mm STM. Also, don't forget the weather sealing.
And if I take the kind of pic that requires sharp corners I will stop down anyway.
For the RP I'd get one of the lighter STM versions though
Thanks for this review and comparison.I’m considering the r system and after watching this review it seems the r6 & 24-105 f4-7.1 as a kit is a solid choice to get into the r system.
nice kit!
Hope you went for it! I have the R6 and this lens as well, and it’s been great! I don’t even need a 24mm prime because I’ve got one at f4 built in!
@@Jamesfrancosdog
Thanks Shawn,I havn’t bought it yet only because of time constraints/commitments,it’s high on the list though.
Very nice! That's 24-240 handily beats the 24-105 in every metric except size and price.
Interesting review since many have almost trashed this lens and the F4 version is a much better than the cheaper cousin. Perhaps review against the R5 and R6 since it might have different results? I had the R6 and I've never had a problem with sharpness in the corner, even under low light conditions.
Yes, I'd like to retest on an R5
I wonder how all three lenses compare on the R5 or R6, with better sensors and DIGIC-X processor. I own the R6 and RF 24-105 F/4L and am very happy with both.
The RP / R6 share the same technology with similar resolutions. Processors / sensors upgrades are marketing, the difference in image quality, if any, will be marginal.
Some times ago I compared the performance of a decade old Canon DSLR with a brand new one, both with APS-C sensor of similar resolutions. I expected a huge image quality improvement, with a 10 years gap! But the only impressive thing was my disapointment.
The main differences between generations of cameras are the functions. For example the old camera was stuck at 1600 ISO while the new went to 6400, but in fact when comparing both at 1600 ISO, the result was almost identical.
It also applies with newer / more expensive cameras. Side by side comparison show so little differences that it just doesn't matter in real life, you will make a lot more improvements by perfecting your technique
@@PAD32 I respectfully disagree. While the R6 doesn't have the resolution of the 30-MP 5D Mark IV, its dynamic range in terms of shadow recovery and low-light performance is significantly better. I own both and recently shot identical compositions with both cameras just to see. It pretty much kicked my 7D Mark II to the curb.
The technology is most definitely not the same. The R6 has not only a better sensor but an infinitely more advanced processor than the RP or 6D Mark II. Sensor and processor both allow far faster burst rate in the R6, which if you shoot birds is critical, as well as the dynamic range and surprisingly good resolution for the MP count. Yes, technique and eye are obviously the most important parts of good photography, but gear does matter and the R6 is light years ahead of the RP and 6DII.
@@JohnDrummondPhoto It's your right to disagree ;-)
I was talking about image quality only, burst rate for example is another topic. For my usage the RP which I own is good enough in almost every aspect, I couldn't justify spending a lot more for small benefits. Again, for my usage.
You're right, improvements have been made in dynamic range, but for noise and sharpness, you won't tell the difference.
Unless you're doing extreme shadow or highlight recovery, it won't make much difference in real life. Especially for testing a lens, as the original discussion was about that. That's just my opinion !
@@PAD32 fair enough. The RP is definitely a good enough camera for the vast majority of shooters. That said, the RP's sensor and processor aren't as good as the R6's. While image quality is close to each other in normal usage cases, users who push their processing or often shoot in less than optimal light will get better results with the R6 than the RP. Horses for courses, as they say.
The lens in question is available in both RP and R6 kits. That is why I posed the original question: I wondered how the 24-105 F/4-7.1 and 24-240 compare to the F/4L when used on a higher-end camera. I opted for the L lens and don't regret it, but the budget-minded customer may just fine with the less expensive model if the resulting images are very close and they don't need F/4 at longer focal lengths. A purely academic question, is all.
nice compact lens, but I was expecting something better in terms of vignetting with the large rf mount, so maybe that is related more to the short flange distance that mirrorless cameras have than to the mount throat diameter....
Canon is keeping the cost down and pairing it with the RP as a US $1299 kit, so they made a lot of compromises (maybe too many) with the optical performance.
Thanks Gordon I think you helped me make up my mind about the stm. Pretty decent performance for a bang around lens. You can almost buy 3 of them for the current price of the L type. Thanks again.
You're welcome, I still feel it's the winner here
Thanks Gordon, I have been thinking of adding this 24-105 budget lens to my R5 kit and you helped me decide it was a good deal. I rarely use this size lens and it should suffice for my needs.
I really enjoy your reviews. Many thanks.
Great review. Many thanks! 🙏🙏😊
You're welcome!
Thanks Gordon. Happy New Year.
And to you too Jon!
Thanks for the great reviews, Gordon!! So well done with excellent samples. Just sent you some coffee money! :)
Cheers, very much appreciated! I've reviewed most of the RF lenses if that's what you're looking for.
I used an RF 24 - 105 mm F4 L lens on an EOS RP during the summer. I have just looked through the photos of buildings I took at that time. When blown up, the corners of the pictures were marginally softer than the centre but it wasn't noticeable when viewing at "normal" monitor size. However, on the few occasions I used that lens, the light conditions were almost perfect.
Maybe I've been unlucky with this lens
@@cameralabs I have owned several samples of the older EF24-105L that I used on my 6d, I compared them side by side and kept the sharpest one (all secondhand) and there were differences between samples, when I bought my RP/24-105L I compared the sharpest EF version agains the RF and there was a noticeable improvement with the RF being sharp wide open edge to edge at 24mm f4. In the method you used with the diagonal line were the buildings in the same focal plane as they look to be on an angle with the left hand side being closer to the camera than the right hand side, if so the centre (assuming that was the focus point) and the sides would be slightly out of focus, just a thought.....
@@stephenpartridge686 yes, I focused on the centre, but the shooting location is almost perpendicular to the pier, so the DOF should cover the pier itself, albeit not what's behind it. The issue is that the 24-105 STM at 24 f4 was sharper in the corners than the 24-105 f4L at 24 f4, and they will have the same DOF in this scenario. So either the f4L is softer in the corners OR it has worse field curvature. I suspect the latter.
@@cameralabs odd that your results are vastly different from other reviews and from experience with two samples of this lens that I've tried (my own and the demo sample on the day of launch for the RP).....
That is exactly the results you would expect and in my experience also what you'll achieve with this lens...
Jolly good review, Gordon, thank you. Lovely trees and flower images at the end.
Seems a very decent lens, one that I would be glad to accept if bundled with, say, the RP, in which case its price would be quite fair. I like your hint that pairing this with one of the affordable primes might round out one's kit or system nicely.
Dear Gordon,
STM version outperforming L version?
I have used for many years first the EF 24-105L and now the RF 24-105L on a R6. I bought the EF version second hand, it was not special being soft at 105mm. It broke down three times being repaired by Canon CPS UK. They were embarrassed by the three failures and on the last repair, for the fixed price charge, they rebuilt the lens completely including replacing the scratched front objective lens! The lens returned was a different beast having much, much better IQ
The first thing I did with the new RF version was to test it fully open at 24 & 105mm . I cannot complain but then the R6 does use as standard the built in Canon image optimiser software which does correct many deficiencies. My conclusion is that if the cheap STM version has better IQ than the much more expensive L version, I would send L version back to Canon and tell them to fix it.
My experience with Canon UK service centre is, whether it is a camera body or lens, the returned item works better than new!
My walk around lens on my now quite batted 5D4 is an equally battered EF 24-70mm f4. I have tweaked the 5D4 camera profiles to produce some very sharp A3 prints. Which is better, the 20 mega pixel R6/24-105 L A3 prints or 30 megapixel 5D4 A3 prints ? I can't decide other than to say the R6 prints require less adjustment in Lightroom and no camera profile tweaking
My advice is, if a lens produces soft images, immediately reject it and get an alternative or try several alternatives of the same lens.
I agree, if a lens seems to be underperforming, it's worth getting it swapped - or at least seen to, and there can be sample variation. BUT I've now tested several copies of the RF 24-105 f4L and they all exhibit the same softness in the corners at 24mm, so either I'm very unlucky or there may be an issue. I'm glad you have one that you're happy with though.
@@cameralabs Thanks Gordon for such a prompt reply. I didn't use a test chart but just selected two photos, one at 24mm f4 and another at 105mm f4 and at 105mm f4 my RF version is not soft in the centre like my original EF version was before repair. I should be interested in Canon's response if they were asked?
Happy New Year Gordon:)
Thanks, Happy New Year to you too!
Happy New Year Gordon to you and yours :)
Thanks, and to you too John!
I just bought this for my also freshly bought R6 because there is no Adapter available for months :/.
So no EF lenses for me for a while...
Thanks for using the RP for those test !
Thanks for another great and detailed review. I wonder whether the rather mediocre corner results with the RF 24-105/4 L could be explained by field curvature. Have you tried focusing in the corners or followed sharpness across a wider range of distances (e.g. as described by Roger Ciala in a recent DPReview article)? Thanks
That's a good point and I'll try that next time I have that lens. Still annoying though if the field isn't flat, especially on a more expensive lens.
@@cameralabs Agreed but at least there are ways to work around that lens behavior.
@@andreasfriedl9858 other reviews of the F4L don't show this "softness" and in my side by side testing I haven't seen anything except sharp results edge to edge....
Hi Gordon, Happy New Year! I love your reviews, they are very informative and you explore all important aspects of a lens. Your site is one of the best sources to get accurate information about the quality and performance of a lens. However I'm interested why you do not test the Canon lenses in the same way as Sony, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron lenses (like resolution test with the same test chart, and the same cityscape for long distance sharpness tests, comparison with other lenses, etc.)? I'm sure this is an enormous work, and what we can find on your site required years of hard work, but why Canon lenses are the ones that are not tested with exactly the same way as lenses from other manufacturers? It would be a good opportuntity for exact and detailed cross-platform comparison, which is not available on any site at the moment.
Simple answer - because they're done by two different people in two different countries! All the Nikon, and most of the Sigma, Tamron and Sony len ses are tested by Thomas in Germany and are written reviews only on the site. He's not interested in Canon, so I review them here in the UK, and as you know I do both video and written versions. I also tend to do the first-looks of many Sigma and Sony lenses too, which Thomas then updates with his own tests at cameralabs - such as the Sony 12-24mm f2.8 GM.
@@cameralabs Oh my bad! It's clear now. Thank you for the answer. Are the full resolution samples that can be seen in the videos are available somewhere?
@@spartanhun yes, I always make a separate written version of all my reviews at cameralabs.com which always include links to full-size samples.
thanks. this is really really useful references
I went through my past years lenses used, and # of Shots: 24-105 F4 - 5,000; 15-35 F2.8 - 15,000; 100-400II - 18,000 - So, I'm going the weight savings route, as I only use the 24-105 during the day for that quick snap shot, and if I'm serious, I'm on the tripod, polarizer on, F8, timed release anyways... "Serious" low light work ends up going to the 15-35 F2.8 RF... ALTHOUGH: I'm "toying" with the idea of a prime either 50 - 80mm, somewhere in that range, just to change it up... Still don't want to pay $400 for this 24-105... I miss the "old days" when you could get a Tokina for cheap that did just as well, if not BETTER....
For serious low light is perfect prime 35 f/1.4
@@torkalovolodymyr5097 I now have an attractive Fiji/Indian girl - so on the lookout for more of a portrait lens perhaps... She wears all those traditional dresses that look AMAZING (and cooks every single day)... ;-)
Just bought this lens for an R8 and my copy is really poor. Difficult to get really sharp photos at all. My friend's version is fine though so must be some quality control issues unfortunately.
Can you change it?
24-105mm has always been a weak area for Canon, I was unfortunate to own both EF L versions, not sharp or crisp at all and critical reviewers dont rate the RF version any better. Cant imagine how bad this range will look on the R5S 90MP when its out... oh yes and happy new year, love your content :-)
I agree, the f4L versions have never impressed me as much as I'd hoped, but this one is pretty good for the money.
I absolutely strongly disagree with these statements. Haha
@@kevindiossi If you compare a EF 24-105mm L with, say a EF 70-300mm L theres a world of difference, the latter is so much sharper. And Im going to say it, the Sony 24-105mm is a much better lens despite some QA issues on some examples :-)
Thanks for camparison!!!!
you're welcome!
Good stuff ! It's only $220 refurbished on the Canon site so it's very tempting.
That's a great price
Thanks Gordon. The EF 24-105 f3.5-5.6 that I bought as a kit with my EOS RP performs extremely well with an adapter, and is faster, so I'm a bit disappointed by the specs of this new RF lens. EDIT: Oh yes, Happy New Year, and stay cautious for a bit longer in the UK!
Good point, I should have mentioned that last Ef version as it's brighter throughout.
@@cameralabs The latest RP kit with this lens is currently US $1299, so my guess is the specs are tied in to the price point, which is a bit of a shame.
Hi Gordon, Happy New Year. I'm the owner of a Canon 70D since 2014, with 18-135 and 55-250 IS STM lenses. I want to invest in a prime lens, which one would you recommend? I'm looking for the best sharpness and fastest focusing, and is it worth selling both of the aforementioned lenses? Thanks in advance.
Why not just get an EF 50mm f1.8 STM to complement them? You need to decide what focal length you want,.
Hello Ahmed. Gordon's recommendation is a good one if you want a fast, short telephoto (80mm equivalent) lens for your 70D. If you want a wider field of view you'll need something in the 20-35mm range. Check out the Canon EF-S 35mm (56mm equivalent) f/2.8 Macro. It's not too expensive, and it's pretty versatile. Finally, sell any lens you no longer use, otherwise keep it.
@@cameralabs Thanks. I want what would be equivalent to 35mm on a full frame sensor. Something in the 20mm range, with good sharpness and fast, reliable focusing, as I want to start doing some street photography. I want to get close to the action whilst giving some context to the scene.
@@ahmedbebars6844 anything wider than 24mm will start to get expensive, so I'd suggest something around there. Canon has an EF-S 24mm f2.8 pancake lens, but I've not tested it. if you're looking to spend several hundred or more, then I'd think about a new mirrorless body to provide access to more options, like the Sigma mirrorless primes.
@@cameralabs Thanks. I guess my Canon 70D's sensor is getting long in the tooth now. According to DxOMark, the Canon EF-S 24mm f2.8 pancake lens when mounted on a Canon 70D gives a sharpness of 12MP, so I'm not making the most of that 20.2MP sensor, especially if I'll have to crop when doing street photography.
Just curious if you also had
Peripheral illumination correction enabled
I can't remember, BUT I always test with default settings, so if that's the default, then yes!
@@cameralabsThank you. The reason I ask is it's been said that peripheral illum can add noise to the corners. I'm assuming this could come across as softness.
@@sumdood2035 I have seen that and commented on it in the distant past, but I think it's less of an issue now as noise performance has improved so much in recent years.
What is your opinion on this lens on the R5? i notice all your tests of these lens are on the R and RP, which makes sense based on target audience. But I am a Working Pro who has the R5 and a complete collection of L Lenses, but as you know, the L lenses, are big and heavy and there is no equivalent to this kind of range. So in situations where i am simply out with family, having this sort of lens, even if the quality is not as good as a 28-70 or 70-200, it would be good enough to not have to carry 2 or 3 heavy lenses. so i am considering purchasing the 24-240 as a family lens. whats your thoughts on that?
You're doing the right thing, going into this with your eyes open. It's obviously a budget lens tnhat won;'t exploit the best from your R5's sensor BUT if it's just for casual walkaround situations then it's a good option - nice and light and small. The 24-240 is also interesting simply to have the 10x range if you think you'd exploit that. BUT maybe it's an opportunity to embrace a standard prime like the 35 1.8? I can make that work for most general walkarounds.
@@cameralabs thanks. it is hard to chase a kid around disney world with a prime :) . Have you thrown the 24-240 on the R5? i guess im more interested in knowing if the EYE-AF, and bird/animal tracking works as well on the 24-240 as it does on a 70-200 or 100-500? I dont own any non L lenses, so im concerned that i would be asking more of the lens than it is designed and capable of, then it just ends up sitting on my shelf.
@@rjgmedia6298 the 24-240 is also an entry-level lens more suited to the cheaper bodies but again it will give your R5 a 10x range that you can't get with anything else. Yes it will work with eye detection well - the R5 can focus with very dim apertures, so no problem there. If you don't need the 10x range and prefer something lighter, go for the 24-105, and with either, just don't expect 45mp's worth of resolution. Maybe try renting one if you're concerned.
Happy New Year!
Thankyou, you too!
จากไทยแลนด์ รีวิวได้ชัดเจนมากครับ ขอบคุณ
Can i use this lens in canon r10 can i ignore 18-150 mm kit lens lens and buy 24-105 stm lens please suggest me for better photography
Yes, but remember to multiply focal length by 1.6x for all lenses on your camera. So the 24-105 won't be wide.
Would i be crazy to choose this lens as a first lens on a R5?
As a casual zoom it's OK but you won't be enjoying the full potential
Thanks!
Much appreciated!
Hello sir, canon R8 and canon 35 mm f 1.8 , how is the combination?
Which is best canon r8 or sony a7iii?
The R8 and 35 1.8 would be a nice combo
@cameralabs thank you sir.
How is R8 compared to dony a7iii ?
@@responsibleliving6071 that's a huge question, I'd refer you to my reviews of each
@@cameralabs can you share the links? Which one do you recommend based on your reviews?
@@responsibleliving6071 they're all on my channel - check out my mirrorless camera review playlist. I can't recommend one over the other in a single paragraph, it's a 20min conversation.
How is this vs the rf50 mm f1.8 stm lens? Would really appreciate any kind of feed back. Decided to buy my first camera wich is a canon eos rp and my main focus is portraits and small groups of people indoor and outdoor etc 🙏🏻
It's a great little lens (I'm using it on the RP as well), I'm not much of a pixel peeper but image quality is amazing. It's a real nice compact combo with the RP and is as fast as you could want it. I shot a wedding using it last week and it's fast, responsive, and the focusing was accurate the large majority of the time
@@suhrazal6529 thats perfect. Thank you so much for the input.
I'd argue that the 50mm has the low light advantage but you're paying for that in terms of versatility. The 24-105 and the 50/1.8 would probably complement each other nicely as a budget option.
It looks to me that your sharpness test photo has different distance to the corner than to the middle
There is a difference, but it's within the DOF
Corner sharpness of the RF zoom is even at f8 not great and worse than my old EF 24-70 f4 L IS USM :(
No weather seal which is stupid
good lens sir
Better than f/4?
different
Something is fishy with the new “affordable” RF lenses, they clearly sacrificed long end aperture speed for profit / pushing people to the L-range. The RF mount should make lens design a bit easier, but I haven’t seen much in that direction, certainly not from Canon. If it doesn’t have a red ring Canon isn’t really trying.
Meh lenses at meh prices.
Their affordable primes are imo especially meh, with their extending lens barrel designs.
Again, they hardly tried to push any envelopes here.
The 24-105L isn't really worth the L. I bought it with my original R and sadly - it is pretty much like the rest of the EOS-R series so far. Overpriced and overhyped to what it actually has to offer. If not overheating as well!!! The 15-25 2.8 lens is decent tho with the added features from the EF 16-35. I still don't find it quite as sharp as the EF one so It's not just your copy of the lens Gordon. :)
Overpriced? The RF24-105L is near enough the same price as the EF and is better in every way!!!
@@stephenpartridge686 well it can be a good lens and overpriced at the same time.
Why are manufacturers making even slower versions of the DSLR alternatives? F7.1 on the long end is getting muddy images due to the increase of ISO on all but great weather days.
Because the mirrorless cameras they're designed for can focus more easily at smaller f-numbers and generally have sensors with cleaner performance than older DSLRs at the same ISOs.
@@cameralabs I get the focusing bit but have yet to see a difference in the cleaner ISO performance of mirrorless sensors. I feel that they're getting lazy and maybe even getting two or three bites at a focal range now. The DSLR 24-105 f4 is a staple of any photographers kit bag. I really can't see this getting the same level of up take.
@@wilteduk007 It's strange, I'd never noticed a f7.1 lens before Canon brought this and the 100-500 out.
@@wilteduk007 I know it's hard, but I believe that F7.1 has a lot of meaning if you think it in a good ways. Real photographers might stay away, but you do know there's a lot of starters who don't know about lenses right ?
Like the macro feature... it tells that beginners tend to point their cameras closer.
Hello I've been kinda struggling to decide on what camera to get
I looked at canon eos r with 24 - 105 f4l and canon r6 with 24 - 105 f4 - f7.1 aperture lens
Mainly wanna use it for landscape but I wanna look at wildlife eventually so i kinda wanna futureproof myself to some point.
I cant, realy afford prime 24 - 105f4l lens with r6 since its gonna cost me more but i can with eos R and with R6 24 - 105 f4 - f7.1
Or should i just buy rf 50mm 1.8 and save up for f4?
And i just wanna expand my lens line up slowly eventually I'm just worried and stressing over this for 4 weeks now
Many people told me that r6 is better value money wise to get this days :)
I also looked at z7 and z6ii with bork 24 - 70 f4 kit lenses
Iv been rly going thru all this and its hard to decide.
Thanks in advance!
If you shoot wildlife, you'll appreciate the extra speed in the drive and AF on the R6
❤🎉
Hello sir 🎉🎉🎉
la traduction fonctionne mal...
No way.
7.1 aperature????
Naaaaa
Who wants a f7?????
It meets a price point and works fine with the cameras it's designed for.
As much, as i do like your respected Reviews, Gordon (since the Sony DSC-R1), UA-camr Christopher Frost came to a different Conclusion about this Cheapskate Kitlens - see here, already 8 Months ago: ua-cam.com/video/Cx9fDx77vgg/v-deo.html It seems to be more than a meh, average, slowish Kitlens.
Different people can come to different conclusions! Also, different people perform different tests and invariably have different samples to review too, so there are many variables. I can't speak for Christopher, but you've seen the results I got in this video from the sample I tested and I believe my conclusions are valid. PS - thanks for sticking with me since the R1, that was a fun camera!
@@cameralabs Yes Gordon, and i do appreciate your Feedback, much thanks for your Answer. PS: I still like my R1 very much, it sees some usage here & there, mostly for Landscapes, and Statues, Architecture. All the Best, Marc
@@marcp.1752 I should add that I think Chris does some good tests - not dissimilar to my approaches in some respects - and I trust his opinions, but different people can come to different conclusions, and again there's sample variation too. I should also mention when I use the term 'kit zoom', i'm normally referring to a cheaper lens that comes with cheaper bodies to get you started. I'm not suggesting an R5 owner buys this lens!
@@marcp.1752 PS - the R1 was one of the first cameras I reviewed as 'cameralabs', during the first month of launch in late 2005! Wish I'd done a video review of it, but it predated UA-cam!
@@cameralabs Yes i know about it. It's an Icon, that Gear. Like the 5D. Both from 2005. Time flies so fast, sad, but true. I have mine since early 2006.
Cheap - yes, best no!
F7.1????
Bullshit
No, just not for you.
I have an R8 and i just bought this one for 129 dollars. You just can't pass that up. 129 dollars from cannon!
What when?!
@@RahzAlGhulthe lens 24-105 stm was 129 at cannon refurbished website. Sorry not the R8