p.2 #1 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
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?
When I had my EF kit, I spent months trying to find a decent 24-85 and each one I got had problems. Some had delaminated elements inside, most had oil and fungus. I went through 4 before I gave up. A combination of age and price meant most were probably stored poorly. I even bought a new EOS IX camera kit with 24-85 and it had fungus.
Ultimately, I went with a newer 24-105 and moved on from that pursuit.
p.2 #3 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
garyvot wrote:
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).
My thoughts exactly, when I first saw these new RF consumer lenses. I wonder how well this will fare with Canon pushing up megapixel numbers and almost forcing the photographer to get diffraction limited. I guess ending at f/8 was a way too big a f/arce even for Canon.
But I think it's not all that bad. I imagine we will get Mk2 at f/6.7, Mk3 at f/6.3 and finally with the Mk4 we will get f/5.6 end.
p.2 #4 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
AmbientMike wrote:
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.
Sigma's 28-70mm f2.8 is only 1.05lbs. So surely there is room for a lighter lens that isn't f7.1.
p.2 #5 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
I have ef24-105v1, rf stm 24-105, and ef 24-70/f2.8 v1. I also have TSE-17, TSE-24, Zeiss 25/2, Laowa 12 and some others.
For indoors I prefer the 24-70/f.28 v1 for the f2.8.
For backpacking and travel, I prefer the rf stm 24-105. For its weight.
For landscape close to the car, I prefer Laowa 12 (because it's very wide), TSE17/TSE24 for the shift, and ef24-105f4v1 because prefer EF lens for my drop in vari filter and I like a big wide zoom. I find that ef24-105 v1 at f8/f11 is good enough that it's not worth buying another lens.
My point - usually its the usage and priced that drives the lens selection, not the small difference in iq at edges.
For family indoors, you should get f2.8 (f1.4 or 1.8 are too tight for dof). [I really like my ef 24-70f2.8 because its dirt cheap and f2.8 and its pretty good near the centre where I typically compose my pictures. And my grandson is so cute that I could use a Sony camera and be happy]
p.2 #6 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
ISO1600 wrote:
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.
Not disagreeing but to complete the list - the L are way more expensive, not much different at f11, way heavier, and much bigger.
L are good solution but sharpness on the edges probably does not matter for family indoors as much as price, range (70mm and above with f2.8 are great for portrait) and f2.8. F2.8 gives you bokeh and faster shutter speed in low light.
p.2 #7 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
In the original post the op complains about blur- without seeing a sample I have to think the shutter speed is an issue.
Is the blur due to noise? If so, the F4 will help somewhat. If the blur is not due to noise then a higher shutter speed is all you need and you can save your money and keep using the lighter lens.
p.2 #8 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
kakomu wrote:
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.
One alternative that you didn't ask about might be to keep your existing zoom and invest in one or two inexpensive primes for candids of the family.
An RF 50mm f/1.8 would allow for many more quality available light shots indoors, with more aesthetically pleasing results, IMO. The RF 28mm pancake is also excellent, cheap, and cheerful.
I find 105mm is sometimes a bit long for indoor shooting, but if you need a fast portrait prime, there are are a number of good options without breaking the bank:
Used EF 85mm f/1.8 or EF 100mm f/2.0 - good copies of either of these are excellent for candids. The 85 is a well-known and respected quantity, but the 100 is a real sleeper, and the slightly better of the two, IMO. While it has some LoCA, it is sharp in the center wide open and renders beautiful out of focus backgrounds.
Yongnuo 85mm F1.8R DF DSM II - native RF mount AF prime. A very good lens at its price point (disclaimer, I own one), focus (using EF protocols) is silent, internal, and fast. Sharpness is decent wide open with less color fringing than either of the EF primes. Caveats: No lens corrections are currently available in Adobe software (or in-camera, obviously). All-metal construction feels different than the Canon RF lenses, and it uses a novel lens mounting option with the release button on the lens (however, it works fine and is not hard to get used to).
RF 85mm f/2.0 MACRO IS. The largest and slowest focusing lens in this group, its main benefit is that it has IS, which is very helpful on the R/RP/R8 bodies. The close MFD is also nice. I use mine with a short 67mm screw-in metal hood which makes the lens considerably more compact in the bag.
I've been an advocate of this approach since my own kids were little. This post (originally written 20 years ago but some might still find it relevant now) explains why:
p.2 #9 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
MintMar wrote:
Good on croppers. FF borders are quite terrible.
And ummm, the silver version wasn't better! (my biggest complaint)
It's a pity to hear but I got it at half the price of the black one (the first time I had it), so no complaints.
Never tested formally but I liked the results I was seeing from the 24-85... more or less (the barrel distortion at 24mm though... yikes. But so many of today's ML lenses -- including standard zooms -- aren't even usable without corrections anyway).
p.2 #10 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
garyvot wrote:
One alternative that you didn't ask about might be to keep your existing zoom and invest in one or two inexpensive primes for candids of the family.
An RF 50mm f/1.8 would allow for many more quality available light shots indoors, with more aesthetically pleasing results, IMO. The RF 28mm pancake is also excellent, cheap, and cheerful.
I have primes. Over the past 15 years, I've owned over 30 of them. I just don't like using them anymore for two reasons:
1. They're inflexible. I like zooming when I just want to get a shot fast. Primes require I move back and forward and I just don't have the time for that anymore.
2. I have to swap lenses to get the right prime on. I've become allergic to changing lenses. I like to pack one lens whenever I head out.
I know the above makes me sound like I'm the one being inflexible, but I've learned what I like and what I don't like. I'd rather not contort my hobby to be something I don't like doing. Temet Nosce. Know thyself.
I'm aiming to have the simplest kit of only two lenses. One general-purpose zoom (the 24-105) and either a wide zoom or a tele zoom. I've just sold most of my other lenses and I'm keeping my 15-30mm zoom for a little bit. I will probably find a good 24-105 f/4L and see if I want to trade the 15-30mm up for a 100-400mm.
I really want to avoid having too many lenses. Too many lenses or too much choice just ends up diluting the process for me.
p.2 #11 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
garyvot wrote:
One alternative that you didn't ask about might be to keep your existing zoom and invest in one or two inexpensive primes for candids of the family.
An RF 50mm f/1.8 would allow for many more quality available light shots indoors, with more aesthetically pleasing results, IMO. The RF 28mm pancake is also excellent, cheap, and cheerful.
I find 105mm is sometimes a bit long for indoor shooting, but if you need a fast portrait prime, there are are a number of good options without breaking the bank:
Used EF 85mm f/1.8 or EF 100mm f/2.0 - good copies of either of these are excellent for candids. The 85 is a well-known and respected quantity, but the 100 is a real sleeper, and the slightly better of the two, IMO. While it has some LoCA, it is sharp in the center wide open and renders beautiful out of focus backgrounds.
Yongnuo 85mm F1.8R DF DSM II - native RF mount AF prime. A very good lens at its price point (disclaimer, I own one), focus (using EF protocols) is silent, internal, and fast. Sharpness is decent wide open with less color fringing than either of the EF primes. Caveats: No lens corrections are currently available in Adobe software (or in-camera, obviously). All-metal construction feels different than the Canon RF lenses, and it uses a novel lens mounting option with the release button on the lens (however, it works fine and is not hard to get used to).
RF 85mm f/2.0 MACRO IS. The largest and slowest focusing lens in this group, its main benefit is that it has IS, which is very helpful on the R/RP/R8 bodies. The close MFD is also nice. I use mine with a short 67mm screw-in metal hood which makes the lens considerably more compact in the bag.
I've been an advocate of this approach since my own kids were little. This post (originally written 20 years ago but some might still find it relevant now) explains why:
How is that little RF yongnuo 85mm? Better than the EF 85 1.8? You don't get the full frame rate with that lens do you? If not, how many fps? It might be a good little lens to throw in one of my water housings.
p.2 #12 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
It's a pity to hear but I got it at half the price of the black one (the first time I had it), so no complaints.
Never tested formally but I liked the results I was seeing from the 24-85... more or less (the barrel distortion at 24mm though... yikes. But so many of today's ML lenses -- including standard zooms -- aren't even usable without corrections anyway).
I cannot remember the last time I took a good photo, but discarded it because the distortion or corner sharpness / CA / etc. was bad.
All of my best photos that I've framed and hung at home have a variety of image defects, including one where I transformed a fisheye photo into a rectilinear photo.
p.2 #13 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
artsupreme wrote:
Gary,
How is that little RF yongnuo 85mm? Better than the EF 85 1.8? You don't get the full frame rate with that lens do you? If not, how many fps? It might be a good little lens to throw in one of my water housings.
All good questions. I haven't shot with it enough to say much more than what I outlined above, but perhaps I can do some more investigation and testing and get back to you.
p.2 #14 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
kakomu wrote:
I have primes. Over the past 15 years, I've owned over 30 of them. I just don't like using them anymore for two reasons:
1. They're inflexible. I like zooming when I just want to get a shot fast. Primes require I move back and forward and I just don't have the time for that anymore.
2. I have to swap lenses to get the right prime on. I've become allergic to changing lenses. I like to pack one lens whenever I head out.
I know the above makes me sound like I'm the one being inflexible, but I've learned what I like and what I don't like. I'd rather not contort my hobby to be something I don't like doing. Temet Nosce. Know thyself.
I'm aiming to have the simplest kit of only two lenses. One general-purpose zoom (the 24-105) and either a wide zoom or a tele zoom. I've just sold most of my other lenses and I'm keeping my 15-30mm zoom for a little bit. I will probably find a good 24-105 f/4L and see if I want to trade the 15-30mm up for a 100-400mm.
I really want to avoid having too many lenses. Too many lenses or too much choice just ends up diluting the process for me....Show more →
Fair enough. (Every time I try to do what you describe, I fail at it, haha.)
As I mentioned in my first comment on this thread, I am liking the RF 24-105 f/4L. Here is a set of recent images from Argentina, most of which were captured with that lens. A couple will give you a sense of the background separation possible at 105mm wide open:
p.2 #15 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
kakomu wrote:
I cannot remember the last time I took a good photo, but discarded it because the distortion or corner sharpness / CA / etc. was bad.
All of my best photos that I've framed and hung at home have a variety of image defects, including one where I transformed a fisheye photo into a rectilinear photo.
The 24-85 makes great photos, IMO.
To add to this, nobody's ever told me, "That could be a great image, but the soft corners ruin it.".
p.2 #16 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
But so many of today's ML lenses -- including standard zooms -- aren't even usable without corrections anyway).
That's a bit like complaining that a car isn't drivable without tires.
No one is expected to use them without image corrections. Why would you? Relying on software correction has enabled tradeoffs that many people find acceptable.
May 08, 2024 at 02:49 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #17 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
Mike_5D wrote:
That's a bit like complaining that a car isn't drivable without tires.
No one is expected to use them without image corrections. Why would you? Relying on software correction has enabled tradeoffs that many people find acceptable.
The 18-55 I got <$35 on B&W is often very usable, without correction.
p.2 #18 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
AmbientMike wrote:
The 18-55 I got <$35 on B&W is often very usable, without correction.
Which is half the focal length and covers half the sensor of a FF 24-105.
May 08, 2024 at 03:02 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #19 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
I've looked at going Rf but there's roadblocks in every direction. I can go out and use the 18-55 no corrections at max iso, I don't see how vignetting correction is going to let you use max iso since you have to brighten the corners if the vignettingis too high.
There's no point in skewering Canon too much, Sony's 20-70 & 16-35/4 have 8-9+% distortion so everyone is doing it. And I'm still using DSLR.
Image corrections are mostly just a miscarriage of technology. Harder to justify "upgrading" to a lens that has major issues compared to the ine you already have and cuts into high iso
p.2 #20 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
If you don't want a lens requiring corrections, you're free to spend a lot more money and carry a lot more weight. Mirrorless was definitely worth upgrading to and I'm happy that my R6 lets me choose between small and big lenses depending on the needs of the day.
camera and be happy]