24-105mm f4.0 Sony FE vs Canon RF
p.3 #124-105mm f4.0 Sony FE vs Canon RF
snegron7 wrote:
I really wanted/needed to get the Sony version, but my concern was the lack of quality control on non-GM Sony lenses. In the past I have had to return several Sony lenses because of decentering issues (on both primes and zooms). I really didn't want to take the risk and go through the hassle of returning the Sony 24-105mm f4.0 again and again until I got a good copy.
I won't be buying any more lenses for my Sony bodies until I can afford to buy a GM series lens. As for Canon, I'm covered for now.I'm not understanding how you possibly use it. Isn't the flange distance of Canon larger than Sony E?
EBHI own a Canon R6II, and I also own a Sony A7iv. I was debating whether to buy a Sony 24-105mm f4.0 to use on my Sony A7iv, OR buying a Canon RF 24-105mm f4.0L to use on my Canon R6II.
I opted for the Canon RF 24-105mm f4.0L to use on my Canon R6II.
I will not be getting a Sony 24-105mm f4.0 for either my Sony A7iv or A7c anytime soon. This is because I chose to buy the Canon RF 24-105mm f4.0L to use on my Canon R6II instead.
I was hoping there was something I had not figured out.
I've had the 24-105/4 RF since the R5 about 5 years ago. It's a good lens, but not quite what it could be.
Tests indicate that the Sony is roughly equal or worse, so it does not make sense for me to get one for the 67MP which is tough on zoom lenses if one wants it sharp all over. The 24-120 S Nikkor is probably the best of the OEM zooms, but Nikon is so screwed up I'm not going there at this point.
EBH
EB-1 wrote
snegron7 wrote
So, I ended up buying the Canon RF 24-105mm f4.0L, and it arrived yesterday.I really wanted/needed to get the Sony version, but my concern was the lack of quality control on non-GM Sony lenses. In the past I have had to return several Sony lenses because of decentering issues (on both primes and zooms). I really didn't want to take the risk and go through the hassle of returning the Sony 24-105mm f4.0 again and again until I got a good copy.
I won't be buying any more lenses for my Sony bodies until I can afford to buy a GM series lens. As for Canon, I'm covered for now.
EBH
I opted for the Canon RF 24-105mm f4.0L to use on my Canon R6II.
I will not be getting a Sony 24-105mm f4.0 for either my Sony A7iv or A7c anytime soon. This is because I chose to buy the Canon RF 24-105mm f4.0L to use on my Canon R6II instead.
I was hoping there was something I had not figured out.
I've had the 24-105/4 RF since the R5 about 5 years ago. It's a good lens, but not quite what it could be.
Tests indicate that the Sony is roughly equal or worse, so it does not make sense for me to get one for the 67MP which is tough on zoom lenses if one wants it sharp all over. The 24-120 S Nikkor is probably the best of the OEM zooms, but Nikon is so screwed up I'm not going there at this point.
EBH
Jun 18, 2026 at 09:26 PM
p.3 #224-105mm f4.0 Sony FE vs Canon RF
EB-1 wrote:
snegron7 wrote
EB-1 wrote
snegron7 wrote
So, I ended up buying the Canon RF 24-105mm f4.0L, and it arrived yesterday.I really wanted/needed to get the Sony version, but my concern was the lack of quality control on non-GM Sony lenses. In the past I have had to return several Sony lenses because of decentering issues (on both primes and zooms). I really didn't want to take the risk and go through the hassle of returning the Sony 24-105mm f4.0 again and again until I got a good copy.
I won't be buying any more lenses for my Sony bodies until I can afford to buy a GM series lens. As for Canon, I'm covered for now.
EBH
I opted for the Canon RF 24-105mm f4.0L to use on my Canon R6II.
I will not be getting a Sony 24-105mm f4.0 for either my Sony A7iv or A7c anytime soon. This is because I chose to buy the Canon RF 24-105mm f4.0L to use on my Canon R6II instead.
I've had the 24-105/4 RF since the R5 about 5 years ago. It's a good lens, but not quite what it could be.
Tests indicate that the Sony is roughly equal or worse, so it does not make sense for me to get one for the 67MP which is tough on zoom lenses if one wants it sharp all over. The 24-120 S Nikkor is probably the best of the OEM zooms, but Nikon is so screwed up I'm not going there at this point.
EBH
Funny you should mention that about Nikon! I was briefly pondering the idea of getting rid of my Sony gear (again) and going with Nikon. But from all the complaints I've read, plus my past negative experience with the D750, I'm probably going to stick with my Canon and Sony gear for now.
Jun 18, 2026 at 09:38 PM
p.3 #324-105mm f4.0 Sony FE vs Canon RF
I sold my Sony for the Nikon 24-120. Nikon is definitely a better performer in all regards.
Like to see Sony do a 24-120 f/4 G II with XDL motor, improved OS, corner-to-corner sharpness wide open.
Like to see Sony do a 24-120 f/4 G II with XDL motor, improved OS, corner-to-corner sharpness wide open.
Jun 19, 2026 at 12:47 AM
p.3 #424-105mm f4.0 Sony FE vs Canon RF
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.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.
I think that’s a pretty fair point — the “old flanker” actually performed quite well. It had some weaknesses, in particular vignetting at 24mm, some barrel/pincushion distortion at 24mm and 105mm, and slightly less sharpness at 105mm. But the first two are easily dealt with in post (in the same way that software-dependent lenses do it now) and the latter was minor and balanced against the larger FL range a decent trade-off.
I’m petty much with folks who say that if the utility of a 24-105m f/4 appeals, most folks should just get the one for the system they have and be happy with it.
RoamingScott wrote
johnctharp wrote
RoamingScott wrote
The Canon is better though the range, and the Z is better than both of them.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.
I think that’s a pretty fair point — the “old flanker” actually performed quite well. It had some weaknesses, in particular vignetting at 24mm, some barrel/pincushion distortion at 24mm and 105mm, and slightly less sharpness at 105mm. But the first two are easily dealt with in post (in the same way that software-dependent lenses do it now) and the latter was minor and balanced against the larger FL range a decent trade-off.
I’m petty much with folks who say that if the utility of a 24-105m f/4 appeals, most folks should just get the one for the system they have and be happy with it.
Jun 19, 2026 at 08:18 AM
p.3 #524-105mm f4.0 Sony FE vs Canon RF
EB-1 wrote:
but Nikon is so screwed up I'm not going there at this point.
EBH
Care to elaborate?
but Nikon is so screwed up I'm not going there at this point.
EBH
Care to elaborate?
Jun 25, 2026 at 01:18 PM