p.3 #1 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
AmbientMike wrote:
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...Show more →
All recent Canon lens—including EF/EF-S—are designed to be optimized with computational corrections in DPP4 or LR. I only owned one lens too old to have a correction profile, my 1994 EF 300 4L USM, but it is good without one. Some RF lenses are okay with the profile disabled. My RF 35 1.8 Macro IS STM and RF 50 1.8 STM are fine without it. Like any Canon lens, they do exhibit some light falloff—but not black corners—but I prefer the slight darkening along the periphery and often disable the profile in LR. My RF 70-200 4L is also fine with the profile off. On the other hand, the RF 28 2.8 STM is horrid without the profile: large blacked out corners and pronounced barreling. Thus, the profile actually crops, brightens, skews and stretches it! I've heard the RF 15-35 2.8L is also good without the profile. What amazes me is the camera actually does in-camera corrections to 4K video.
p.3 #2 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
AmbientMike wrote:
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...Show more →
I think of digital corrections in these lenses as being the equivalent of a optical lens group that would otherwise be required in the design. Adding glass to correct for distortion adds weight and bulk and may trigger other aberrations that then have to be corrected, etc. The distortion is not a "flaw" when lenses have been purposely designed this way.
Vignetting is not really the same thing, I think. Most non-pro lenses have always allowed for a significant amount of optical vignetting to keep the size and cost down. I don't think the new RF designs are any better or worse here. The more expensive lenses have less of it, which is what you would expect.
p.3 #3 · 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.
So, if I do some optical comparisons, I'll maybe take those to a new thread so as not to (further) randomize this one, but I thought I'd share that the YN 85mm 1.8 II does indeed run at the full 15fps in EFCS mode on my R6 Mark II. It sounds identical to the RF 85 in H+.
OTOH, the EF 85mm is capped at 7 or 8 fps.
The Yongnuo has the standard number of EF contacts on the rear of the lens, with no additional RF contacts, so it is obviously using EF protocols, but it appears to do more than just emulate the EF 85mm f/1.8. It seems like a legit modern design.
Here's a quick comparison shot of the three with my de rigueur metal hoods. You can see the Yongnuo's unique lens release button in profile on the right side:
p.3 #4 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
garyvot wrote:
So, if I do some optical comparisons, I'll maybe take those to a new thread so as not to randomize this one, but I thought I'd share that the YN 85mm 1.8 II does indeed run at the full 15fps in EFCS mode on my R6 Mark II. It sounds identical to the RF 85 in H+.
OTOH, the EF 85mm is capped at 7 or 8 fps.
The Yongnuo has the standard number of EF contacts on the rear of the lens, with no additional RF contacts, so it is obviously using EF protocols, but it appears to do more than just emulate the EF 85mm f/1.8. It seems like a legit modern design.
Here's a quick comparison shot of the three. You can see the Yongnuo's unique lens release button on the right side profile: ...Show more →
Nice, 15fps is good enough. Will it give you the 40fps in ES mode too? Yeah I agree start a separate thread on it when you have time. Thanks for the info, I like the size of that little thing. If time permits, see if you can shoot some action with it, like a dog running at you around 2.0-2.2.
p.3 #5 · 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).
Yeah, the amount of distortion in the cheap lens today is astounding. The film forced all optical corrections into the lens.
24-85 was very good on crop, I liked as a walkaround or single-lens-camera setup. But for the cropper I replaced it with EF-S 18-135 USM which is wider, longer, but IQ is even better.
p.3 #6 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
Incidentally I used the 24-85 a lot today, on both the Z9 and the 1D Mark IV. Some very good and sharp photos there, some not so much but it seems the AF is more to blame (and it flares... not helped by the fact that I don't have a hood for this specimen, although one from Tamron 45mm may fit it with some modification). However, the real weak point in my lineup now is seemingly the 100-400 (ver.1)... maybe years of abuse and damage have caught up with this lens.
p.3 #7 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
kakomu, I’d like to know about the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1, too. I’m spoiled by having all f/1.8 to 4 lenses, but lugging the EF L zooms is getting to be a bit too much. I own an EOS R and now the R50 for travel and have been debating the RF24-105 f/4, the f/4-7.1, and the RF-S 18-150. BTW, I own the RF16, 24, and 35 primes. All easy enough to change up, but sometimes you just need a walkaround zoom.
p.3 #8 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
I use the RF-S 18-150 on my R7 for travel, hiking, etc (kit lens came with R7). And it's excellent. Sharp, tiny and light, surprisingly quick to focus considering the STM (the internal focus helps) and the quasi-macro is good enough for flowers and other wee objects. Yes, the long end is too slow for low light but F3.5 at 18mm is good enough for snapshots in subdued lighting in restaurants, casinos, etc. The IS and IBIS combo lets me use really low shutter speeds.
Since I have the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1, I tried it on the R7 a few times and it balances well and is sharp—the APS-C crop takes care of the weak corners and periphery. However, 24mm isn't wide enough for me so not an ideal walk around lens on APS-C.
p.3 #9 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
mborozny wrote:
kakomu, I’d like to know about the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1, too. I’m spoiled by having all f/1.8 to 4 lenses, but lugging the EF L zooms is getting to be a bit too much. I own an EOS R and now the R50 for travel and have been debating the RF24-105 f/4, the f/4-7.1, and the RF-S 18-150. BTW, I own the RF16, 24, and 35 primes. All easy enough to change up, but sometimes you just need a walkaround zoom.
I just sold my 24-105 STM. in fact, I sold everything I have, except for the 28mm f/2.8 pancake. I plan on getting the f/4L and using only that and the 28mm pancake for now.
p.3 #10 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
Congratulations on your decision, kakomu! I had a tough time deciding between the RF 28 and RF 24 and went with the latter. Both make a great lightweight kit.
May 09, 2024 at 11:28 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.3 #11 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
Gochugogi wrote:
All recent Canon lens—including EF/EF-S—are designed to be optimized with computational corrections in DPP4 or LR. I only owned one lens too old to have a correction profile, my 1994 EF 300 4L USM, but it is good without one. Some RF lenses are okay with the profile disabled. My RF 35 1.8 Macro IS STM and RF 50 1.8 STM are fine without it. Like any Canon lens, they do exhibit some light falloff—but not black corners—but I prefer the slight darkening along the periphery and often disable the profile in LR. My RF 70-200 4L is also fine with the profile off. On the other hand, the RF 28 2.8 STM is horrid without the profile: large blacked out corners and pronounced barreling. Thus, the profile actually crops, brightens, skews and stretches it! I've heard the RF 15-35 2.8L is also good without the profile. What amazes me is the camera actually does in-camera corrections to 4K video....Show more →
I wouldn't go that far, just because a lens has corrections doesn't mean it was designed to be used that way. Somewhat, they probably started designing lenses keeping in mind what could be corrected easily but corrections exist on lenses before digital and made to be used on film.
No, you shouldn't need corrections on 50/1.8 or 70-200/4. Even 18-55, the distortion isn't too bad, 3-4% that you could see on 16-35's, and I like the vignetting, and can easily stop down to get rid of it if enough light. Although I definitely use corrections to improve performance at times, but I don't want to be obligated by huge amounts of distortion and vignetting
Just looking at opticallimits, I'd try f/4 and leaving distortion corrections on, to crop a bit of the vignetting, should help the performance. This lens might be good , I had though about using in conjunction with inexpensive 24-105, although you don't seem to be liking this lens too much, not sure if that'd be a good solution or not
May 09, 2024 at 11:33 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.3 #12 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
garyvot wrote:
I think of digital corrections in these lenses as being the equivalent of a optical lens group that would otherwise be required in the design. Adding glass to correct for distortion adds weight and bulk and may trigger other aberrations that then have to be corrected, etc. The distortion is not a "flaw" when lenses have been purposely designed this way.
Vignetting is not really the same thing, I think. Most non-pro lenses have always allowed for a significant amount of optical vignetting to keep the size and cost down. I don't think the new RF designs are any better or worse here. The more expensive lenses have less of it, which is what you would expect.
I definitely consider distortion a flaw. One thing I like about 11-16 is the low distortion. S9 it's difficult to see why a new lens has so much vs 15+ year old lens, mostly just bad design on the new ones imo
The 21 zeiss known for lots of vignetting, so that cones to mind, more a pro lens. 50/1.8's don't have much, 70-200/4 used to be inexpensive and don't, either, AFAIK. The aforementioned 18-55 really isn't bad, hesitant to upgrade to a lens having a lot more , it is going to affect how high you can run the iso, and cancel iq gains on the new gear
p.3 #13 · 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 →
I suggest looking at the RF 24-240mm lens instead of the RF 24-105mmL. I have been using this lens for a number of years and can't say a bad thing about it. Its IQ is not far off from the 24-105mmL lens and it has 135mm of additional reach. The build quality is very good, the AF is nano USM which is the same as in many L lenses including the 24-105mmL and the IS is very good too. The f stop table for this lens is below:
The f stop as compared to the 24-105mmL is only one stop at 104mm and one and a third stop out to 240mm. Out to 43mm it is a third of stop and to 69mm it is two thirds of a stop. There is some lens correction going on at 24-25mm but it hasn't posed a problem for anything I have shot. It might be an issue for more picky landscape shooters in this narrow range but going out to 26mm eliminates this correction. Also, this lens has very good reviews from those who use it and from internet reviewers. It is my go to lens when I don't want to, or can't, carry multiple lenses. It is by far the best super zoom lens I have owned with none of the typical penalties for using a lens with a 10X focal range. Lastly, the price for it is $500 less than the RF 24-105mmL.
p.3 #14 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
Canon has been very good at supplying correction profiles for DPP4 during the past decade+. I can't say what their ultimate plan is—other than making money—but certainly they've been edging towards computational corrections for a long time. I can say correcting barreling on my RAW files from 20 some years ago has been great. An EF 24-85 3.5-4.5 USM was my main lens during 2003-2005 and it suffered pronounced barrel distortion and vignette at 24mm, ruining ocean horizons (I live on the ocean) and now the earth is flat again. The corrections don't matter for flowers and people but I often shoot landscapes.
AmbientMike wrote:
I wouldn't go that far, just because a lens has corrections doesn't mean it was designed to be used that way. Somewhat, they probably started designing lenses keeping in mind what could be corrected easily but corrections exist on lenses before digital and made to be used on film.
No, you shouldn't need corrections on 50/1.8 or 70-200/4. Even 18-55, the distortion isn't too bad, 3-4% that you could see on 16-35's, and I like the vignetting, and can easily stop down to get rid of it if enough light. Although I definitely use corrections to improve performance at times, but I don't want to be obligated by huge amounts of distortion and vignetting
Just looking at opticallimits, I'd try f/4 and leaving distortion corrections on, to crop a bit of the vignetting, should help the performance. This lens might be good , I had though about using in conjunction with inexpensive 24-105, although you don't seem to be liking this lens too much, not sure if that'd be a good solution or not ...Show more →
p.3 #15 · 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.
I used an EF-S 18-55mm f 4.0-5.6 with my SL2 for times I wanted a light and small setup. IMO, it was the best bang for the buck lens I have ever owned. I paid $77 for it shipped to my door and is was tack sharp across the zoom range and delivered far better IQ than it had a right to.
May 09, 2024 at 12:42 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.3 #16 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
Gochugogi wrote:
Canon has been very good at supplying correction profiles for DPP4 during the past decade+. I can't say what their ultimate plan is—other than making money—but certainly they've been edging towards computational corrections for a long time. I can say correcting barreling on my RAW files from 20 some years ago has been great. An EF 24-85 3.5-4.5 USM was my main lens during 2003-2005 and it suffered pronounced barrel distortion and vignette at 24mm, ruining ocean horizons (I live on the ocean) and now the earth is flat again. The corrections don't matter for flowers and people but I often shoot landscapes.
Yeah I'll use distortion corrections on a horizon at the lake, even. And DLO helps corners on the 18-55.
Other times not needed so much though, or at least i dont use it, and even 70's or thereabouts single coated OM 24/2.8 covers the frame, no cropping needed, not too much distortion or vignetting. So it can get frustrating that recent lenses have that
May 09, 2024 at 12:44 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.3 #17 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
PicGuy wrote:
I used an EF-S 18-55mm f 4.0-5.6 with my SL2 for times I wanted a light and small setup. IMO, it was the best bang for the buck lens I have ever owned. I paid $77 for it shipped to my door and is was tack sharp across the zoom range and delivered far better IQ than it had a right to.
Such a light landscape setup! I used 18-55 on SL2 as well, LV has DPAF and you can use lens corrections on raw in DPP, if you are interested. But it's not mandatory since that lens came out before they really started pushing the envelope on computational imaging
p.3 #18 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
I had the 18-55 as part of a kit and never really gave it a chance before I sold the camera (XTi) and lens. I hated that camera.
My biggest regret is selling my EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (version I) when I bought the 24-105 f/4 VI 12 years ago. I could use that lens now that I am now an “older” person.
p.3 #19 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
AmbientMike wrote:
Such a light landscape setup! I used 18-55 on SL2 as well, LV has DPAF and you can use lens corrections on raw in DPP, if you are interested. But it's not mandatory since that lens came out before they really started pushing the envelope on computational imaging
The little SL2 was one of the most satisfying cameras to use I have owned. It and the EF-S 15-85mm lens are the only two pieces of EF gear I regret selling.
May 09, 2024 at 02:52 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.3 #20 · Is the RF 24-105 F/4L really better than the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1?
tkbslc wrote:
Sigma's 28-70mm f2.8 is only 1.05lbs. So surely there is room for a lighter lens that isn't f7.1.
If they could've taken something like the 80's Tamron SP 28-80, maybe even improved the performance a bit (if you'd even need to) given 30+ years of CAD, and put it in a plastic af mount at <$300, that makes more sense to me than enforced cropping and massive distortion.
IS might be a bit much to ask, but they did manage to get it into 18-55's, even.
