garyvot
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.8 #6 · p.8 #6 · Canon announces the RF 24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM Z fast, flexible photo and video zoom | |
rscheffler wrote:
Thanks Gary, hang tight. I received the lens Monday evening and have shot thousands of images with it at the local university's convocation ceremonies. Lots of candid event coverage, formal on-stage event coverage, etc. For the past couple years the 28-70/2 has been my staple event lens, including for these convocations. I have been OK with the 28mm 'limit' due to coming from Leica M with only primes and 28mm as one of my primary focal lengths. Often I prefer the look of stepping back a foot or two and shooting longer than being in super close with a wider lens.
I have not had time to look at image quality closely, but I have not seen any obvious signs of concern either. It appears to be very well behaved, consistent and sharp wide open, including at the wide end. It might be a bit weaker wide open at 105, but at least on 24MP, still sharp enough. I haven't updated my Lightroom version for a while and it does not have corrections for this lens, so I will have to update LR before I start post on this project. In the meantime I checked a couple files shot at 24mm and uncorrected distortion is strong. Interestingly the RF 24-105 STM profile appears to be close enough, so that will tell you about how much distortion the Z lens has at 24mm.  The lens generally appears to hold good contrast in backlighting, focus is very fast, faster than the 28-70, and the feel/dampening of the manual focus ring is possibly the best I've ever experienced for a fly-by-wire focusing system (and possibly better than many true manual focus lenses).
Things I really like about the 24-105Z include how light and smooth the zoom ring feels. It's nearly effortless to zoom yet doesn't feel like it's too loose and doesn't appear to drift, either. I'm also liking the additional range at the tele end. I need to switch to the 70-200 a lot less often and as with the 28-70 usually just complement it with the RF 135/1.8. But because the gap between 105 and 135 is not nearly as significant as between 70 and 135, I feel like I want a longer second lens. So 70-200 makes more sense in some ways, but the 135 is also a stop faster (for low light situations). For covering the convocation ceremonies, the dream combo would be the 24-105 and 100-300 with and without the 1.4x TC. I currently cover this event with the 200-400 at the long end and the RF 70-200/4 across the middle. Cutting this down to two lenses would reduce lens changes and simplify things, but at this point not really in the budget. It kind of threw me off at first working with the Z and the 70-200/4 because the Z handles more like a traditional 70-200/2.8 and whenever I would switch to the 70-200/4 it was so light that I kind of would do a double take to be sure I had the right lens on the camera.
An aspect I don't like about the 24-105 is its length. It's roughly the size of a traditional 70-200/2.8, though feels lighter than the EF versions (which I really disliked due to their weight). Here the 24-105 is still manageable and at least for me, not that much different than the 28-70, in practical use. My event coverage style is such that I'm often close to the people I'm photographing and I feel like the Z is causing some undesirable reactions because it looks like a big telephoto lens. My impression is that some subjects appear uncomfortable about this and possibly think it's zoomed in for a really tight shot of their face. However, the reality is at these distances I'm almost always at the wide end and getting several people in the photo. So some who this is pointed at, appear to feel uneasy, whereas those to the side might think they're not in the photo. Anyway, I kind of feel self conscious and uncomfortable pointing it at people only a few feet away where the 28-70 was already bad enough.
So initial impression is mostly very positive but there is some downside due to the size of the lens, IMO. The zoom range is great for events and f/2.8 is useful for lower light coverage and more subject separation. But I think there is still place for the 28-70 because its images in the shared focal length range do have better subject separation at f/2 and sometimes that extra stop is very helpful for low-light venues set up for ambiance/mood. In an ideal world I would own both at least for a while to get a feel for how I use each. In fact this evening I did a dinner reception with both and each had use cases. The Z more for the 105/2.8 reach while there was still daylight coming through the large bank of windows. And the 28-70/2 once the daylight was gone (venue was not good for bounced flash use due to high black ceilings). The Z also feels more 'general purpose' with a broader use envelope but gives up a bit of the 'look' that can be achieved with the 28-70 wide open. As usual, it's a tradeoff of convenience over specialization.
I could see complementing the Z with f/1.2 or f/1.4 primes for more impressive wide open bokeh, when desired. But then I feel like I'd be going back to where I was before the 28-70. And I'm pretty sure I don't want to go back to swapping fast primes.
And to touch on the concept of pairing the Z with the 100-300 (which is something Canon promotes on the Canon Japan site - not sure if it's also the case with Canon USA): it would be an ideal combo for what I'm covering this week because the venue justifies the use of a lens like the 100-300. But if I was doing a wedding, or some other more 'intimate' corporate event, I probably wouldn't want to haul around the 100-300 as my only telephoto option when a 70-200 is all I'd need at the long end. Or even 'just' a 135. Actually what I would want is what I've been asking for for a few years: a 70-135/2 to pair with the 28-70. 
But for general 'run & gun' with slightly less of a 'magical wide open look' than the 28-70, the Z is a more versatile and very well behaved lens. If my current standard zoom was the 24-70/2.8, which I used a while in EF mount and felt the RF version behaved and looked very similarly, and similarly uninspiring, I'd hands down get the Z as a replacement.
Note, the above is based purely on stills work. I have done some video work with the 28-70 and 24-105 STM. Neither have smooth enough zoom rings for good zoom pulls (though it's pretty impressive that much of this can be fixed later in post). I think the Z would be excellent if video was a factor in the decision making process....Show more →
Thank you, Ron, very helpful.
I, too, often like to work close to people with a moderate wide lens (28-35-ish), and I have tried to wrap my head around how that would work out here. I imagine there are some situations where you can just smile and say, "it's not really zoomed into your face!", and wait for people to relax, but often you can't interrupt a presentation or whatever. Having a smaller prime for this is ideal, but of course: lens changes.
No free lunch, haha.
|
