RoamingScott wrote:
The Canon is better though the range, and the Z is better than both of them.
That's been my outsider impression following along as these lenses have released... and here I have an EF 24-105/4L that outresolves my 6D and only wants for a better autofocus system...
johnctharp wrote:
That's been my outsider impression following along as these lenses have released... and here I have an EF 24-105/4L that outresolves my 6D and only wants for a better autofocus system...
I never did use the EF version, though I'd find it surprising if it's as corrected as the RF. Still plenty good enough for lots of things, though.
snegron7 wrote:
Thanks!! My goal is to buy the RF 24-70mm f2.8L someday!
I was actually looking at the Sigma 28-105mm f2.8 for my Sony's! It was in my shopping cart together with the Canon RF 24-105mm f4.0L at the same time waiting for me to decide which of the two to get. I ended up deciding in favor of the Canon because of the weight difference.
Another lens I was looking at was the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 for Sony. Chances are it might be the next purchase (as soon as I recover from biying the Canon RF 24-105mm f4.0L)!
jojib wrote:
BTW, how's the 24mm with the RF 24-105/4 L IS?
Good question! I have only tried it with my RF 35mm f1.8 Macro so far. I will be testing it against my RF 24mm f1.8 Macro, RF 28mm f2.8 STM, RF 50mm f1.8 STM, EF 85mm f1.8 USM, and EF 100mm f2.8L this coming weekend. Also, I'll be testing it out with my RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 (time permitting). My biggest obstacle is finding a subject/object to photograph for testing. These is absolutely nothing of interest anywhere near me except for birds and spiders. The only remotley interesting place to photograph anything near me is the downtown city of Fort Myers, but finding a parking spot there is next to impossible (every available parking spot including the parking garage requires online payment, and I really don'ttrust their online system al all). All other spots are suitable for wildlife, but this particular lens (RF 24-105mm f4.0L) is not suitable for wildlife.
I'm quite bullish that your RF 24-105 will pass with flying colours! From my experience with Canon standard zooms i.e. EF 24-105/4 L IS, EF 24-70/2.8 L and now RF 24-70/2.8---they've all been outstanding lenses in terms of sharpness, AF performance and overall rendering. Sometimes I wish I went with the RF 24-105 instead of the 24-70 mainly because for headshots as 105mm is more ideal than at 70mm. I still take them at 70mm but not too close with the subject.
RoamingScott wrote:
I never did use the EF version, though I'd find it surprising if it's as corrected as the RF. Still plenty good enough for lots of things, though.
That's exactly the point - it's an old clanker, but when your output consists of some cropping then exporting to social media, it's difficult to imagine that improvements to 'sharpness' would have any effect at all. Even at f/4, at both ends of the zoom range, I've been surprised at the level of detail.
If the newer versions improve on basically everything, well, it's hard to see them then as perhaps lacking except when compared to higher-end lenses in niche scenarios IMO.
Ha, I used to be the same, shooting Canon and Sony side by side, even adding a Leica Q (Q > Q2 > Q3), etc but my needs and priorities have changed over time. I moved from USA to Europe, I try to bring a camera everywhere I go, even daily, so I tried the a7Cii but I just didn't like the EVF, lack of buttons, the rolling shutter of that generation of sensor, etc. I have now simplified things down to a Sony a7V + 24-50/2.8 + Batis 85/1.8. That works both for photography and my dabbling in video (along with a ECM-M1 mic). Add them to the insurance and don't worry about it. I don't really shoot wildlife or sports at this point, so I don't need a big zoom, nor ultra-wide lenses.
Honestly, if one could put Sigma and Tamron glass on a Canon R6 III or R5 II, I would probably be using one of those options.
What I use to carry the kit depends on where I am/doing. If there is risk, I simply through the gear in a Uniqlo Multi-Pocket shoulder bag (30 bucks) and no one knows what is inside/cares.
patotts wrote:
Ha, I used to be the same, shooting Canon and Sony side by side, even adding a Leica Q (Q > Q2 > Q3), etc but my needs and priorities have changed over time. I moved from USA to Europe, I try to bring a camera everywhere I go, even daily, so I tried the a7Cii but I just didn't like the EVF, lack of buttons, the rolling shutter of that generation of sensor, etc. I have now simplified things down to a Sony a7V + 24-50/2.8 + Batis 85/1.8. That works both for photography and my dabbling in video (along with a ECM-M1 mic). Add them to the insurance and don't worry about it. I don't really shoot wildlife or sports at this point, so I don't need a big zoom, nor ultra-wide lenses.
Honestly, if one could put Sigma and Tamron glass on a Canon R6 III or R5 II, I would probably be using one of those options.
What I use to carry the kit depends on where I am/doing. If there is risk, I simply through the gear in a Uniqlo Multi-Pocket shoulder bag (30 bucks) and no one knows what is inside/cares.
My biggest dream is to some day move to Spain and take pictures every day and evening on the beautiful streets, castles, cathedrals, and ancient ruins for the rest of my natural life! However, I am painfully aware that that dream of mine will never come true, so I will be stuck in Florida with only the occasional opportunity (finances permitting) to travel to one place or another maybe once every year, or every other year.
You are extremely fortunate to have moved to Europe!
