Sharp sharp sharp. Sharper than my 24-105 f/4 L and my 24-7- f/2.8 L. Sold both of those. I understand the 70-200 f/2.8 Z is as good. I may upgrade to that also except for the compact size of the RF non Z.
BobnJake wrote:
I'm considering selling my last EF lens, the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8l ii, any thoughts on the RF 24-105 f/2.8 Z lens?
Thanks in advance
What will be your primary uses for this lens?
I had access to the 24-105/2.8 for a couple weeks over which time I made a few tens of thousands of images with it. I was very impressed with it. Very sharp, very fast AF, greatly useful focal length range, good flare resistance, very smooth and easy zoom ring, very smooth and very good resistance to the manual focusing ring. IMO it's a really great all-rounder and I'd have a difficult time choosing between it and the 28-70/2, which is my mainstay as a standard zoom.
Keep in mind a lot of what you are buying with the 24-105 is related to video optimization, which explains its size and internal zoom and why it matches the general physical specifications of the 70-200Z (so that the two can be easily swapped on balanced video setups).
Tradeoffs would be an increased reliance on software distortion correction, particularly at the wide end, but this is increasingly common with Canon's mirrorless lens offerings, and those of other manufacturers, too. Size and weight might also be a factor. I found it well balanced and didn't mind the weight (again, I'm used to the heavy 28-70), but the size is more borderline IMO. For me, because I do a lot of event work dealing with people, its size appeared to cause some unwelcome reactions when working at very close ranges, which one might do at wide angle focal lengths. People just see this large, long black lens pointed at them from a few feet away and assume you're zooming in on their pimples, etc. and don't realize you're including much more in the scene than just them. And because it's the size of a typical non-collapsing 70-200, it didn't easily fit some of my existing carry options that have been built around shorter lenses and the collapsible 70-200s.
I, basically selling the 24-70, so that all my lenses will now be RF lens, that will give me the 24-105, the 85/1.2, the 70-200 f2/8 Z and the 100-500. Should now have a nice overlap with the 24-105 and the 70-200,
Fantastic all around lens. I can now shoot 90+ % of a wedding with this lens. So much more versitile than the 24-70 2.8, that extra 30mm goes a long way. Even though its not f2, i do not miss my 28-70f f/2.
Do you need F/2.8? I know we all say we do, but do you actually? I have been using the RF 24-105 f/4 for the last couple years as my primary lens, and while there are occasional times I have missed the 2.8 of my 24-70 II, I love the extra reach and more manageable size of the f/4 version for what I do.
That being said, since you said you have the 70-200 Z, you should be able to evaluate size and weight for the 24-105. From a focal length perspective, I am a huge fan of the 24-105 / 70-200 pairing. I like having overlap so that you don't feel the need to always be swapping. Also, your 100-500 gives the option of a simpler kit for landscape or similar situations. I found a 24-105 II / 100-400 II pairing great back in my EF days when on landscape outings.
Agree with rscheffler's comments. The 24-105 f2.8 is a very nice lens and a very good all around lens in that zoom range. tt's great for sports and events and the extra 35 mm comes in handy sometimes. Depending upon what you photograph the 28-70 f2 might be another consideration. I have both and sometimes it's tough to decide which one to pick up for an assignment. The 28-70 is a very nice lens too. Both weigh quite a bit more than your 24-70 and both are a little awkward handling wise in different ways.
ITs just to big and bulky for any use for me. I have tried to enjoy it but it doesn't fit easily in a bag, carrying it around on your body is awkward and its just a monster camera lens that you can't be inconspicuous with.
RustyRus wrote:
Its the lens I want to love but HATE-
ITs just to big and bulky for any use for me. I have tried to enjoy it but it doesn't fit easily in a bag, carrying it around on your body is awkward and its just a monster camera lens that you can't be inconspicuous with.
IF that doesn't bother you, its an amazing optic.
+1
Just like the Sigma 105 f/1.4, Canon EF 200 f/2, Canon RF 135 f/1.8, etc. Great optics, but too much of a pig to fit into my already massive kit. And in the 24-105 FL range I prefer something a lot faster than f/2.8. But like someone said above, it can be a great tool for things like weddings or events.
A good choice for the extraordinary wide aperture in a very useful range of focal lengths. I would however argue that complementing this with the 24-105mm L f:4 IS makes sense too, for use in lighting conditions and/or where weight considerations may overide the need for the f:2. It is heavy and bulky, and lacks the 24-28 and 70-105 ranges that make for a more comprehensive walk-around lens. The 24-105 is very reasonably priced for an L lens, and even displays moderate to no focus breathing in the 24-70 range. And the IS is handy even if you have IBIS.
I think you are going to like it a lot. If for whatever reason you don't they seem to hold their resale value very well. It's unique to have f2 in that focal range. It's heavy but it's a very nice all around lens.
I am off to South Africa in a couple of weeks and will be traveling around the southern region of the continent for the next 6 months. I am only bringing two bodies (R1/R5ii) with the 100-300, both TCs and the 24-105 f2.8. I agree with others that the 24-105 f2.8 is an amazing lens but if I had to walk around with it I would opt for something else. But in my case I wanted to cover from 24-600mm with two lenses (+ TCs) so the 24-105 serves that purpose.
robert_in_ca wrote:
I am off to South Africa in a couple of weeks and will be traveling around the southern region of the continent for the next 6 months. I am only bringing two bodies (R1/R5ii) with the 100-300, both TCs and the 24-105 f2.8. I agree with others that the 24-105 f2.8 is an amazing lens but if I had to walk around with it I would opt for something else. But in my case I wanted to cover from 24-600mm with two lenses (+ TCs) so the 24-105 serves that purpose.
I get it. On Safari is probably the one place I would use this lens. Now if the incoming 300-600 were f/4 at 500mm it would be a really nice trio, but I'm guessing it won't be and I would rather take a 400 2.8 instead. At this point, a near perfect 3 lens safari kit would include two brands for me:
I’ve owned all the Canon RF Glass. Recently sold the 24-105 RF f2.8 as well. Amazing lens through and through, but the length of it is a bit on the long side. So much so that I don’t always feel like shooting with it. But optically it is sharp and an amazing lens to use for photography and videography. If I was traveling I would opt for something a little bit smaller and that is why I owned both the 24-70 and the 24 - 105 RF lenses.
Hope that helps.
Mac.
BobnJake wrote:
I'm considering selling my last EF lens, the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8l ii, any thoughts on the RF 24-105 f/2.8 Z lens?
Thanks in advance
I am struggling myself to switch my 2470/2.8 for the 24-105/2.8.
I sometimes shoot youth sports and there I shoot a lot in the 70-100 range of my 70200. Then for group images atc. I have to switch to 24-70.
24-105 would me allow to use one lens most of the time.
But on the other side I prefer the size weight of the 24-70, a) easier to hold and b) I feel more comfortable with a smaller lens when I get closer to people.
I am quite interested in more experience about those 2 lenses in comparison. How do you get along with the size and weight of the 24-105/2.8?
Even the RF70200/2.8 is 300g lighter.
I like the 24-105 unless I go on a long hike with multiple lenses. It was my primary on many trips, except when I didn't want to stand too much (that's a loss anyway) or when I really had to be careful with the grams. I find the IQ from the 24-105 to be better than the 24-70, the operation (zoom ring) is smoother, and yes it's longer But yes it's also impressively large.
Its size is more like a 70-200 f2.8. When I used it for in-close event photography, I could sense some nervousness or even confusion about why I would be using a large (longer focal length) lens so close. It made me decide to keep my 24-70 f2.8 for the kind of work. I really love the tripod collar for monopod mounting when I need it. Sharpness and quick focus are flawless, of course.
