Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 Kit Lens? Help Please.

Bogino
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 Kit Lens? Help Please.

Recently my camera bag was stolen while traveling in Costa Rica. I lost my EOS R6; RF100-500mm and Tamron 24-70 f2.8.

Now I'm starting the process of repacemnt.

The EOS R6 II is available as a kit with the RF 24-105 f/4 at a reasonable price with current rebate. Question is:

I used my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 as my "all purpose" lens mostly for landscapes as well as occasional astrophotography (metoer showers etc.--nothing advanced). Would the Tamron f/2.8 be the better lens for me since it is f/2.8 (compared to the 24-105 f/4) or not necessarily so? I know the Canon has little bit more zoom but does the f/2.8 versus the f/4 make that much of a difference.

Thank You.

Jun 27, 2024 at 01:13 PM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 Kit Lens? Help Please.

The f2.8 gives you twice as much light as f4. Only you can determine how important that is to you.

Different bokeh if you care about that.

Jun 27, 2024 at 02:05 PM

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 Kit Lens? Help Please.

I've been using the 24-105 f4 as my general FF travel lens since 2006 and can't say I've encountered serious limitations with f4 vs f2.8. The f4 Ls are sharp from f4 and generally smaller and lighter. One stop of ISO is not much these days. You might consider adding one of the STM primes if shallow DOF is your goal. I purchased the RF 24-105 with my R5 and find it an improvement on my original. Likewise my 100-400 and 100-500 Ls have been fast enough for my needs.

Jun 27, 2024 at 03:06 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 Kit Lens? Help Please.

F/4 is slow for astrophotography on a regular tripod imo.

Landscapes I'd use 2.8 , rather be at f/5.6-8 though, so F/4 isnt as much of a disadvantage. Stabilization is supposed to be realty good, f/4 vs 2.8 might not make a lot of difference on static subjects

Jun 27, 2024 at 03:29 PM

StephenS_CP
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 Kit Lens? Help Please.

as well as occasional astrophotography
1 stop of light is significant in both noise and exposure time to minimize star movement

Different bokeh if you care about that.
For myself, I care about that. Maybe not a factor if grand landscapes. How important is creative control to you in intimate landscapes?

When I started getting the higher resolution DSLR (5DmII, 5DSr) I made a point of getting the EF f2.8 24-70mm lens over the f/4 EF 24-70 or 24-104 lenses. When I got the MILC R5 I decided to give the RF 24-105 f/4 a try, just to be open minded as well as to get the RF "experience". The lens takes good, sharp pictures but I miss the creative control

Jun 27, 2024 at 03:32 PM

lighthound
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 Kit Lens? Help Please.

For a great general purpose and mainly landscape lens I'd go with the native RF 24-105 f/4. No need to use an adapter and should perform better than the adapted Tamron. Then add a faster lens for astro and/or portraits later on. I still use a cheap Rokinon 14mm 2.8 when I want to click on some stars which is very infrequent.

Jun 27, 2024 at 03:41 PM

Danplane
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 Kit Lens? Help Please.

As a photographer, the end product is what counts. The end product is a compilation of your creative input and the system that you are using, in your case the R6 II and a lens (assuming for the sake of this discussion no other system parts.) the R6 II is an incredibly versatile and powerful body (coming from a guy who uses 1dx IIs and IIIs.) The 1 stop difference between the two lenses is negated by the capability of the R6 II - for most users, the extra stop will never be noticed because between the additional stability making lower speeds hand-holdable (what! of course it's a word) coupled with the sensor performance the extra stop provides no benefit so long as we are talking only about weight vs. lower light for general photography. Not knowing what type of work you are doing, things like bokeh, extreme low light, or weight factors that do distinguish the f.2.8 from the f.4, I cannot advise on.
I can tell you that I have been using the EF 24-105 f.4 in all variations, since well, let's just say almost forever. More recently, I have added the RF version to my kit on a R6 II. The balance of focal range and weight (I use the f.4) have always served me extremely well and have yielded an extremely fine technical product in portrait, landscape and technical subject photo work. I can't think of a better general lens - that's why I have 3 or 4 (or so...)

Jun 27, 2024 at 03:47 PM

garyvot
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 Kit Lens? Help Please.

The Canon RF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS is a very fine lens, IMO, with good character and a compelling range of focal lengths. I like mine better than the EF versions I had used previously.

You can see a few samples of the work I tend to do when traveling with it here:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1851156/1#16513158

That said, I am one of those photographers who does find bokeh to be very important. I shoot people frequently and f/4 is not fast enough to provide the subject separation I prefer in some cases. So I usually carry one or two fast primes in addition.

An f/2.8 zoom can be a decent compromise for some people, but the added weight and cost are big trade-offs. The RF 24-70 f/2.8L is bulkier, heavier and loses significant focal length, while the RF 24-105 f/2.8Z is 3lb and $3,000 (not to mention awkwardly long making it harder to carry).

For most people, f/4 is fine, and this lens represents a great option for travel and generalist photography on a full frame body.

Jun 28, 2024 at 07:40 AM

kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 Kit Lens? Help Please.

I really, really like the 24-105 f/4L range from Canon. I had the original 15-ish years ago, I think, and several others, including the current RF version right now. They can handle 80-90% of what most photogs need. They're sharp, the IS is really good, f/4 on a zoom is really awesome and they're not super heavy.

I had f/2.8 zooms back in the day and it always felt like I strapped a brick around my neck. The RF 24-105 f/4L's size and weight makes it easy to carry it all day long. Personally, I can make 105mm @ f/4 work for portraits in low light and the IS lets me shoot in very low light at long shutter speeds for stationary things.

I'm not a professional any longer, so most of the things you get with expensive lenses don't appeal to me any longer, like more bokeh or shooting fast moving subjects in low light. At least, not compared to the price and size considerations. Nowadays, light traveling is the most important aspect for me.

Jul 02, 2024 at 08:15 PM

John Daniel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 Kit Lens? Help Please.

Now is the time to think about what’s important as subjects for you and also how much astro you do…versus the rest of your photography.

I do a lot of landscape photography.
The RF 24-105 is really good, a lot better IMO than the EF versions.(had them all and had also various 2.8 versions in the last 25 years. When I switched to the mirrorless, I got the RF 24-70mm 2.8 and the RF 24-105mm f/4. I kept the f/4 and sold the 2.8 because it was not giving me enough benefits for the price and was heavier.

The range is great, the weight is great for travelling and as a kit lens.

And if you do want to do night skies, get yourself the 16mm f/2.8; it is cheap and pretty good for astro.

PS: never liked the previous EF versions of the 24-105mm f/4 but the RF version is something else.

JD

Jul 14, 2024 at 05:35 AM


FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.