p.1 #1 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
I’ll start this off by noting that ultimate picture quality is usually not a high priority to me. All lenses in the canon lineup produce excellent images.
I take a lot of candid photos of my family indoors. We have OK lighting and light walls, so I can get some keepers at 105mm, f/7.1 with and IS and ISO 6400, but most have too much blur.
I’ve been considering getting the f/4L version solely for the aperture. But, is it really better? F/4 to f/7.1 is still less than 2 stops of light. It’s heavier and doesn’t focus as close. I love the focal length range and the EF 24-105 f/4L was my main lens on the 5D mk iii. Primes stopped being my thing after a while, so I like having just one or two main lenses. Thus, I REALLY want that range. I also do not want to spend the money or carry the weight of a f/2.8 zoom.
Then again, I sold the 5D and EF kit to get the smaller, lighter RP w/ RF kit.
I feel like I’m at an impasse.
I’m leaning toward getting the f/4L. I think the extra aperture will offset the extra weight and close focus distance. But there’s that thought lingering in the back of my mind.
Does anyone have any thoughts they would like to share?
p.1 #2 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
Apart from other aspects of lens quality (sharpness, contrast, etc.), the main difference for me would be the very slow f/7.1 aperture at 105mm. Obtaining pleasing background blur is already challenged at f/4, IMO.
But I like to photograph people, and I am rarely shooting stopped down with a telephoto lens. If you are doing scenics, landscapes, general travel photography, etc. in good light, the aperture may not matter so much.
I have not used the slower lens, so I can't really add anything specific that you can't find from the reviews.
I do find that I am more satisfied with the RF 24-105 f/4L IS than I was with either of the EF versions.
p.1 #3 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
I own both the RF 24-105 4L and the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 IS STM The STM came as part of a kit on clearance otherwise I wouldn't have bought it. Is the L version really better? Yes, but only you can decide if its differences are important. Obviously the L version is has a constant F4 aperture across the zoom range. What may not be obvious is the faster AF (Nano USM vs STM), more robust build, weather seals, dedicated MF ring and better image quality. With that said, the image quality of the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 IS STM is okay but obviously less sharp along the periphery than the L version. I like to shoot landscape so edge quality is important to me but for tourist snaps and outdoor family pics it probably doesn't matter. If you really want a larger aperture, the RF 24-70 2.8L IS USM is the one to look into. Both lenses often go on sale at Canon Direct. I've seen the RF 24-105 4L refurb go for $799 a couple times since last Fall. The RF 24-70 2.8L was only $1299 a couple weeks back but sold out fast.
p.1 #4 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
You can't really defy the laws of physics. If you need faster lenses in low light situations then you're going to be working with larger lenses. And the greater the zoom range, the larger the lens will be. Consider the size of the new RF 24-105/2.8. That would seem to be the ideal lens for you, but it's the size of a 70-200/2.8 and also expensive (relative to the slower options).
I think f/4 can work for indoors and certainly if you're already making f/7.1 work.
p.1 #5 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
I'll basically echo what the others already said- Yes the L is better in essentially every optical way, and build quality is a step up, but the kit zoom is no slouch, so long as you have realistic expectations. Perfectly fine for decent lighting travel/walkaround zoom.
p.1 #6 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
kakomu wrote:
I’ll start this off by noting that ultimate picture quality is usually not a high priority to me. All lenses in the canon lineup produce excellent images.
I take a lot of candid photos of my family indoors. We have OK lighting and light walls, so I can get some keepers at 105mm, f/7.1 with and IS and ISO 6400, but most have too much blur.
I’ve been considering getting the f/4L version solely for the aperture. But, is it really better? F/4 to f/7.1 is still less than 2 stops of light. It’s heavier and doesn’t focus as close. I love the focal length range and the EF 24-105 f/4L was my main lens on the 5D mk iii. Primes stopped being my thing after a while, so I like having just one or two main lenses. Thus, I REALLY want that range. I also do not want to spend the money or carry the weight of a f/2.8 zoom.
Then again, I sold the 5D and EF kit to get the smaller, lighter RP w/ RF kit.
I feel like I’m at an impasse.
I’m leaning toward getting the f/4L. I think the extra aperture will offset the extra weight and close focus distance. But there’s that thought lingering in the back of my mind.
Does anyone have any thoughts they would like to share?...Show more →
Sometimes it's far from redundant to have lenses sharing the same focal length or range, if one is heavy with a large aperture and the other is light weight with a narrow aperture. For me it's far less cumbersome to have a heavy lens in the bag than having that heavy lens on the camera all the time. The RF 28mm pancake and Sigma 28mm f/1.4 ART aren't redundant, and the same is true for the EF 40mm f/2.8 pancake and the 40mm f/1.4 Art, or the RF 50mm f/1.8 stm and the RF 50mm f/1.2 USM L.
You might want to consider the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 IS USM L (or even the 28-70 f/2.0 USM L) next to the 24-105mm stm. Switch to the heavy lens when you need it, enjoy the light weight lens when you don't.
You could also add primes at the most important focal lengths to gather more light (RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm or 100mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro for the long end, the 35mm f/1.8 stm and maybe 24mm f/1.8 stm for wider stuff).
Personally I think it makes a lot more sense to add a bright prime for family pictures indoors, and even a bright zoom helps a lot. Indoors 85mm is usually long enough (if anything it would be rather too long). The 35mm and 85mm aren't crazy heavy to bring along. The 50mm f/1.2 L is a very nice lens for family pics indoors, but that one is heavy to bring along let alone on your camera for walk around stuff. That said, at least for all the indoors family pics at home the weight isn't a problem so much, and the same is true when visiting family by car.
Another thought: how much reach do you really need? Personally I like to have an 85mm next to 24-70mm, as 60mm is a bit short at times. At the same time I don't really need 105mm that much.
p.1 #7 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
Of course it is. And still a slow lens for indoor shots.
May 06, 2024 at 08:42 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #8 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
I'm just going by the opticallimits tests of both lenses you .might take a look at those, but I'd prefer the 24-105/4. The STM is a bit of a wreck at 24mm, grunted that's not a people FL as much really.
My first thought was an 85/1.8 or f/2 for indoor candids, but I've used similar lenses to the 24-105/4 indoors for family very happily. 1 2/3 stop is a pretty big difference imo, if you are getting some sharp at 7.1 you should get a lot more at f/4
p.1 #9 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
In re: primes, I already have a pair of primes, including the 50mm f/1.8 (so plenty fast for indoor photos) and I just don't use them very much. I prefer the convenience of a zoom far more than the performance of a prime.
My biggest hangup is going to be the weight of the lens, which is why I initially opted to give the 24-105 STM a try and especially why I'm not considering any of the f/2.8 zooms.
p.1 #10 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
I have been asking myself this question about 6 weeks ago. My 5D II + EF 24-105L etc setup was getting too heavy for me. So I got an R8, and I really like the versatility of this 24-105 FL range. Having difficulty to decide, in the end I acquired both the L and STM lenses, the latter having a light allround travel kit in mind. In terms of IQ, not having heard much praise about the STM my expectations were limited.
After only a few weeks of use conclusions are naturally premature. However, on some occasions (mostly city and landscape), I took both lenses with me, and swapped them again and again, exposing them to similar subjects. To my surprise, I have a hard time telling which of the two lenses an image was taken with.
I imagine in the long run I might observe the superiority of the L version which reviews suggest, but for me the STM was definitely a positive surprise. The R8 + 24-105 STM make a light and well-balanced kit that is fun to use and easy to carry around your neck. With the 24-105 L, the R8 gets quite a bit front heavy. But if you need f/4 at 105 mm, this is in favor of the L. Of course YMMV.
p.1 #11 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
rmhh wrote:
I have been asking myself this question about 6 weeks ago. My 5D II + EF 24-105L etc setup was getting too heavy for me. So I got an R8, and I really like the versatility of this 24-105 FL range. Having difficulty to decide, in the end I acquired both the L and STM lenses, the latter having a light allround travel kit in mind. In terms of IQ, not having heard much praise about the STM my expectations were limited.
After only a few weeks of use conclusions are naturally premature. However, on some occasions (mostly city and landscape), I took both lenses with me, and swapped them again and again, exposing them to similar subjects. To my surprise, I have a hard time telling which of the two lenses an image was taken with.
I imagine in the long run I might observe the superiority of the L version which reviews suggest, but for me the STM was definitely a positive surprise. The R8 + 24-105 STM make a light and well-balanced kit that is fun to use and easy to carry around your neck. With the 24-105 L, the R8 gets quite a bit front heavy. But if you need f/4 at 105 mm, this is in favor of the L. Of course YMMV....Show more →
The 24-105 STM is definitely an underrated lens. Most people dismiss it just based on the f/7.1 aperture, but that's only at longer focal lengths. The center is sharp enough for most uses. I use this lens on my R6 when I want to keep things as small as possible while having the flexibility of a zoom. The next step down for me would be just using my phone, which usually disappoints me. The lens's IS is excellent and allows it to largely overcome the slow aperture even in low light, provided you're not trying to freeze action.
p.1 #13 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
^ The appeal of the RF 24-105 STM from the OP's perspective is precisely its small size. The EF non-L, while smaller than the L, isn't nearly as small as the RF STM. But yeah, trade offs, because it does gain you 2/3 of a stop at the long end. Kind of wonder if the OP might be better served by something like an APS-C R (R10?) paired with the upcoming sigma 18-50/2.8. But that lens doesn't have 105mm equivalent reach... Just 90mm equivalent, but still better than all the xx-70 lenses on FF.
Mike_5D wrote:
The 24-105 STM is definitely an underrated lens. Most people dismiss it just based on the f/7.1 aperture, but that's only at longer focal lengths. The center is sharp enough for most uses. I use this lens on my R6 when I want to keep things as small as possible while having the flexibility of a zoom. The next step down for me would be just using my phone, which usually disappoints me. The lens's IS is excellent and allows it to largely overcome the slow aperture even in low light, provided you're not trying to freeze action.
I agree it's underrated and agree that if using it at the wider end, it's not much slower than the f/4L, though it does ramp up to f/5.6 fairly quickly. I got one with a used R6 and initially dismissed it, but after trying it, I use it in place of the 28-70 when in situations where the big L zoom will get banged around in busy environments and where the payoff for bringing it is low (as in a low paying gig or the need for such a lens is just a few shots here and there where the fast zoom is not needed).
p.1 #14 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
MintMar wrote:
I'd say the best 24-105 allrounder is the EF 24-105 IS STM. Which is not something Canon should be proud of with their RF successor.
Yeayea I know, converter and stuff.
Indeed, haha.
This triggered a random observation:
DSLR autofocusing systems were historically limited to f/5.6 (though a few pro models could manage f/8 with center AF points). This meant that nearly all variable-aperture EF lenses were designed with f/5.6 as the slowest aperture setting.
Well, R-system mirrorless cameras have no such "limitation". So, Canon took this "opportunity" to design RF lenses with ridiculously slow maximum apertures (by my way of thinking).
I understand all the arguments for why this might be a "good" thing (lenses can be smaller and lighter; cameras have better high ISO performance; we old schoolers should "get with the program", etc.), but I dislike it, nevertheless.
Having more usable maximum apertures makes adapting some older EF and EF-S lenses appealing to me, despite the added clunkiness.
p.1 #15 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
If finances allow, why not consider the RF 70-200 2.8? Much faster than the f4L, which I had and didn’t greatly care for, and obviously a great choice for all sorts of people photography.
Fantastic image quality at all apertures till diffraction sets in. A clear first choice I think.
p.1 #16 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
Once upon a time, Canon had a great "budget" standard lens, the EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. Small, sharp, convenient range, though not built like a tank by any stretch of imagination. I'm wondering what was keeping them from simply replicating it in RF mount with a new optical formula, with maybe a little deviation in focal length, instead of releasing the wonder that is f/7.1 at the long end?
p.1 #18 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
In my experience, yes. Especially at the wide end. The distortion and vignetting correction needed for the wide end of the RF 24-105 STM makes it so it is never fully sharp at any aperture.
And at the longer end, the 24-105L is quite a bit sharper at f7.1.
The 24-105L is also quite a capable portrait lens. I know f4 is not considered "fast", but at 85-105mm F4 on FF can do very pleasing subject separation.
The IS and AF motor are also upgrades and very noticeable in video.
The RF 24-105 STM is quite a bit lighter (not that much shorter). And it has a nifty trick of having very close focus at both ends of the zoom range. And of course way cheaper.
I upgraded to the L and sold the STM. The L is outstanding all around. Landscapes, travel, portraits, studio, video - it handles them all well.
May 07, 2024 at 10:15 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #19 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
The rf 24-105 is supposed to be the best out there. It weighs about 1.5 lbs which isnt bad considering the versatility of these fl and is basically the same as the others weightwise.
I really liked the 18-135 indoors on the 30D, mostly around f/4, so I definitely think the 24-105 could work. I'd prefer the L, it's more landscape FL for me, so I need good edges etc that you don't really need on a lot of people photography. But if you're not getting sharp enough images you need a faster f/4 lens.
I wish Canon would put a more old school f/4-ish ~28-85 in a good quality plastic kit lens type mount, inexpensive, but having excellent performance. It'd probably be a lb or less.
p.1 #20 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
If anyone want to see a quick example of the 24-105 STM compared to a couple of other lenses, here is is. All three are at 24mm and f/5.6. The camera was on a tripod so any framing differences are due to the lenses.
Which is not something Canon should be proud of with their RF successor.