Nice comparison. I have shot with the Canon EOS-R for over four years along with my 70D and the 90D without purchasing any RF lenses. My old Canon EF 70-300 USM and EF 28-105/F3.5-4.5 work better on the R than on either DSLR in OVF mode. I have added the EF 100-400IIL and EF 24-70/F4 L IS to my system. My Tamron 35-150/F2.8-4 VC, originally purchased for my 70D works even better on my R and is as sharp as the 70-200 lenses, only more versatile for so many situations. My EF 28/F1.8 and 50/F1.4 and 85/F1.8 work very well on the R as well. I use the control ring EF-RF converter and like the location of the control ring next to the body with the adapter than at the end of the RF lenses, which I think is why many RF shooters ignore this very useful feature which I use for ISO or EVC. I bought the R instead of the 5D4 as it was the mirrorless version of it but without the second card slot. As I recall the fast CF card on the 5D4 could be prone to failure, but I have never known personally anyone who has had an SD card failure. The R will focus in -6EV, almost in the dark, so we don't need the extreme wide aperture lenses as much as on the DSLR. I will probably break down soon as buy the EOS-R7 as a replacement for my 90D but still would want the EF-S 17-55/F2.8 IS for it as Canon has been slow and ignoring RF-S lenses. I currently use my old Tamron 17-50/F2.8 Xr Di on the 90D and it is still very sharp and reliable after seven years or so. There are a handful of reasons to use some RF lenses on some RF cameras but that is not universal to all of them.
OMG this is exactly the video I needed lol I’m torn between the EF and RF version. I’m just a hobbyist and can get a used EF for a third of the price of a used RF. Seems like the difference isn’t THAT significant if you aren’t a professional. Thanks!
From everything that I have seen, it only makes sense to buy the RF version of a lens if it is your daily driver or the lens you use the most to make money with. So I picked up the RF 600mm f4 because that is what I use most of the time and I wanted to lose the extra weight. Other than that you probably can do very well with your EF lenses and I intend to keep mine until they break.
I have the EF mkI version and I love the flexibility of the focal length. It is very sharp in the center but at 24mm it really suffers from quite horrendous distortion and soft corners and edges. Maybe I‘ve got a bad copy. So my advice is just to test it out first.
I know - mine is the same. I loved it on my 5D Mk II, and accepted the edges, but now with an R5 the edge sharpnes - no, the LACK of edge sharpness - is just too extreme. I'm still sticking with EF lenses, but it'll have to be the f/2.7 24-70 II (the 24-105 will be retired to live on the old 5d Mk II in a camera bag, as backup)
In the end, it's all about the pictures created. The thing is, most reviewers aren't that creative. The technical parts of the lens can only take you so far
Thanks for the comparison! I'll be sticking with my EF Mk.I. I love the RF glass, but the upgrade cost would be around 800 bucks, it doesn't seem to be worth it at this point.
That silhouette shot! MAAAAAAAAN!… Props!💗 Just love me that EF 24-105 f4 L. So glad it's starting to get some love. Tubers be dissin it as just a kit lens.
thanks for including the physical comparisons! I have the EF version and use it with a adapter, however with the adapter, the lens is just a little too long / big for me personally. might be worth a upgrade to the RF lens just for ergonomic reasons.
I've decided to pick the 24-105mm thanks to your comparison. I'm still a new photographer so I was looking for some good but affordable Standard Zoom lens. Was also considering 24-70 f/2.8 but lack of the IS is a bit of a bummer for me. Hopefully the 24-105 f/4 will work nicely with my EOS R6.
The 24-70 2.8 RF also has IS which is what makes the decision between it and the 24-105 RF more difficult. For video several years ago when using EF lenses, it was always a no brainer to choose the EF 24-105 for handheld since it had IS and the 24-70 did not, but now these RF versions both having IS makes it tough 🤔 The price difference between the two EFs back then was also a few hundred dollars and not $1000, which may make the decision easier for some people 😅
Purchased factory referb RF 24-105 f4L from Canon online store for $720 US with R6. BTW, if you zoom on brick wall, you'll see how EF much softer compare to RF.
Canon is price gouging its loyal customer base on the majority of their EF L glass...some prices have jumped a few $hundred over 2020 prices. I thought the chip shortage was responsible, however, Sony GM lens and Nikon premium lens prices do not reflect similar price gouging.
My 24-105 is a bit soft. It also still takes amazing pictures with my R6 and cost me 400$ instead of 1750$ (CAD) or 1200$ used. I aint a pixel peeper and I always work on the image sharpness in post.
can you use the RF on a micro 4/3rds camera? I own the BMPCC 4k I also have a metabones speedbooster, but wasnt sure about the "RF" lenses, I know the "EF" lens work fine.
This is a good point and something we should have mentioned. There will be noise during video with the EF like you said. That is a benefit to go with the RF version. Thanks for chiming in!
When I said improvements I mean contrast, chromatic aberration and a bit of sharpness. It's obvious that you can't add macro and zoom range on editing. Anything below 1 of magnification is not macro so all those zoom lenses with macro aren't really macro. Talking about the price I bought an Ef 100 f2.8L IS Usm macro for £570, an Ef 24-70 F2.8L Usm for £550 and an Ef 24-105L IS Usm for £360. My point is you can buy good equipment for less money and obviously if you have the cash...without any doubt you'll jump to the top of the range 😉
I've used the ef version for years. I just bought the adapter...any shortcomings in the ef version can be removed in lightroom. No way im buying this and the 70-200 2.8 for my r8.😂
I personally don't think the RF lens are worth it unless you shoot sports and require fast AF features. Because apart from that and perhaps a tiny difference in image quality with an additional blade there is nothing more that the RF offers. In fact, the build quality of the RF, stinks. They break easily and cost massively much more. Instead of buying RF, I mostly buy EF. Glass does count but the man behind the glass counts more. I would rather shoot good photos, save money, and still have great glass than break the bank, and possibly the RF lens itself I was not careful enough. IF you shoot good pictures, the additional quality of the images does not make a major difference but if you don't then the quality of the images would not matter. Sports journalists require RF for the AF speed but to be honest, I am personally happy using second-hand, good EF glass on my R6 MK2 with a heavier pocket. I can perhaps spend the excess on travelling the world and going to more places to take photos instead of selling a kidney to buy an RF glass and waiting for 5 to 6 months until I can save to travel. Nothing wrong in using EF Lseiries lens. A good photo is a good photo and people who look at them won't even care about the image quality but rather the quality of the shot itself. EF L series lenses are still top-quality professional lens. The RF pL series prices are a piss-take mate and they are clearly not worth the money.
i Have the EF and the RF, wide open the RF is way sharper than the EF at all focal lengths. and at 5.6 miles away, it takes f9-f14 to finally the EF version to reach the RF in terms of image quality and that's only because of the diffraction that starts at a very early f8 on the RF version. Otherwise, there would not be a comparison between the two.
the caveat on the mark 1 24-105mm EF is the aperture blade ribbon failures. Even the mark 2 has issues, although it is much better than the mark 1 in this respect. The RF version doesn't have this problem at all. Used - no warranty either.
That lens is about 18 years old by now. If it hasnt broken yet, it surely won't either. If something happens, it's bargain chips on the used market vs a new RF. People shouldn't be afraid of used gear; I've been shooting all my life 100% used and never had any issue.
@@stephangauthier911 that is not true. Ever heard of MTTF? If the lens has been sitting in a drawer for 18 years, unused, and then someone starts using it, it WILL fail. It's only a matter of time. Caveat Emptor. Just cos you've had a good run, doesn't mean others have. You have a sample rate of a big fat ONE. Statistical, it's of zero worth when it comes to analysing things.
@@davepastern yeah but who leaves their lenses on the shelf for 18 years? I'm 4 bodies in and 9 lenses. Plus 2 tripods, a set of nd filters and a lowepro camera bag. I'd be out thousands and thousands if I bought it new.
@@stephangauthier911 you missed my point. If I use a lens very lightly, it will take longer to reach MTTF. It doesn't change the major design flaw in this particular lens, that isn't a matter of if, but when it'll fail. The mark II improved the ribbon cable failure problem, the RF eliminates it completely. I'm not arguing that you can't get winners out of used gear - you can. I'm arguing that with this particularly lens, it has a very high failure rate, certainly much, much higher than other lenses. You seem to be failing to grasp that.
honestly? they both suck! i've used the EF version for years alongside 5D mark 2 and than mark 3... Even though at the time it was the only lens that covers the range from 24 to 105 in my bag.... i could never get satisfied 100% with this lens....same goes for 24-70 2.8 the first version. The RF is not much of an upgrade too, rented this lens couple times to use with EOS R... NO NO NO waste of money imo, better get ef 24-105 from used market if you dont want spend a fortune on 24-70 today.
Given that EF lenses are being phased out by Canon and will eventually reach EOF in terms of support and parts, why are we having this conversation?!? lol
I picked the original EF 24-105 for a quarter of the price of the RF24-105. It was an excellent deal for me.
Nice comparison. I have shot with the Canon EOS-R for over four years along with my 70D and the 90D without purchasing any RF lenses. My old Canon EF 70-300 USM and EF 28-105/F3.5-4.5 work better on the R than on either DSLR in OVF mode. I have added the EF 100-400IIL and EF 24-70/F4 L IS to my system. My Tamron 35-150/F2.8-4 VC, originally purchased for my 70D works even better on my R and is as sharp as the 70-200 lenses, only more versatile for so many situations. My EF 28/F1.8 and 50/F1.4 and 85/F1.8 work very well on the R as well. I use the control ring EF-RF converter and like the location of the control ring next to the body with the adapter than at the end of the RF lenses, which I think is why many RF shooters ignore this very useful feature which I use for ISO or EVC.
I bought the R instead of the 5D4 as it was the mirrorless version of it but without the second card slot. As I recall the fast CF card on the 5D4 could be prone to failure, but I have never known personally anyone who has had an SD card failure. The R will focus in -6EV, almost in the dark, so we don't need the extreme wide aperture lenses as much as on the DSLR.
I will probably break down soon as buy the EOS-R7 as a replacement for my 90D but still would want the EF-S 17-55/F2.8 IS for it as Canon has been slow and ignoring RF-S lenses. I currently use my old Tamron 17-50/F2.8 Xr Di on the 90D and it is still very sharp and reliable after seven years or so.
There are a handful of reasons to use some RF lenses on some RF cameras but that is not universal to all of them.
OMG this is exactly the video I needed lol I’m torn between the EF and RF version. I’m just a hobbyist and can get a used EF for a third of the price of a used RF. Seems like the difference isn’t THAT significant if you aren’t a professional. Thanks!
From everything that I have seen, it only makes sense to buy the RF version of a lens if it is your daily driver or the lens you use the most to make money with. So I picked up the RF 600mm f4 because that is what I use most of the time and I wanted to lose the extra weight. Other than that you probably can do very well with your EF lenses and I intend to keep mine until they break.
I have the EF mkI version and I love the flexibility of the focal length. It is very sharp in the center but at 24mm it really suffers from quite horrendous distortion and soft corners and edges. Maybe I‘ve got a bad copy. So my advice is just to test it out first.
I know - mine is the same. I loved it on my 5D Mk II, and accepted the edges, but now with an R5 the edge sharpnes - no, the LACK of edge sharpness - is just too extreme. I'm still sticking with EF lenses, but it'll have to be the f/2.7 24-70 II (the 24-105 will be retired to live on the old 5d Mk II in a camera bag, as backup)
I have both EF adapted glass and RF lenses. I have found almost no difference except maybe a fraction of a second in focusing speed
Yes better owning a ef lense bcz of its versatility
I've been wondering this. Having a hard time justifying paying 3k for the rf 28-70 vs. The ef 24-70 which is half the price
@@TimelessAmor-sy9xo I mean, for the 28-70 you get a full stop more of aperture
U forgot to mention the additional 'phantom' stops of stabilization with the RF when paired with IBIS
Thank you for this honest and direct comparison. You just saved me a ton of money.
In the end, it's all about the pictures created. The thing is, most reviewers aren't that creative. The technical parts of the lens can only take you so far
Thanks for the comparison! I'll be sticking with my EF Mk.I. I love the RF glass, but the upgrade cost would be around 800 bucks, it doesn't seem to be worth it at this point.
I personally shoot with my RP and use mainly my 85mm EF lens with the adapter. I love it. I’m not really a fan of the RF lenses tbh
Looking at getting the EF 24-105 F4 for the R7, this video helped a lot with the decision, thanks!
loving and appreciating these videos on the 24-105 while learning and looking to make a decision! thank you
That silhouette shot! MAAAAAAAAN!… Props!💗 Just love me that EF 24-105 f4 L. So glad it's starting to get some love. Tubers be dissin it as just a kit lens.
I'd go for the RF version for the slight price different. Also already starting to see them show up used as I got mine on Gear Focus for $850 :)
In the Canadian market the EF is $5-600 and the RF is $1400ish used. EF definitely worth it.
Hello!
I shoot with R5c, lens 24-70 usm, in a quieter environment noise is created from the lens - AF
if the STM lens is much quieter
thanks for including the physical comparisons! I have the EF version and use it with a adapter, however with the adapter, the lens is just a little too long / big for me personally. might be worth a upgrade to the RF lens just for ergonomic reasons.
Totally understand that. adaptors can make the lens way too long sometimes!
I struggled a bit at first too, but then I added an L bracket (with grip extension) and it changed everything. It's now solid and balanced in my hand.
Thanks for this video. Some day i'll pick up a r6 Mark i, and my equivalent ef lens will still do great
what you refer to as fringing is in fact chromatic abberation, but hey, thank you anyway, you saved me probably 1000+ Euro's today ;-)
Thx for all the info. I'd love an RF at this time (i have a 24-105 which i love) but it's not in my budget at this time.
I've decided to pick the 24-105mm thanks to your comparison. I'm still a new photographer so I was looking for some good but affordable Standard Zoom lens. Was also considering 24-70 f/2.8 but lack of the IS is a bit of a bummer for me. Hopefully the 24-105 f/4 will work nicely with my EOS R6.
The IS in the RF 24-105 is quite impressive. I think you'll be happy with that lens!
Works very well for me, no complaints. I have both and honestly can’t tell the difference except for the large dent in my wallet
The 24-70 2.8 RF also has IS which is what makes the decision between it and the 24-105 RF more difficult. For video several years ago when using EF lenses, it was always a no brainer to choose the EF 24-105 for handheld since it had IS and the 24-70 did not, but now these RF versions both having IS makes it tough 🤔 The price difference between the two EFs back then was also a few hundred dollars and not $1000, which may make the decision easier for some people 😅
Thanks for the explanation, I would like to ask you: With which lens did you shoot this video?
Purchased factory referb RF 24-105 f4L from Canon online store for $720 US with R6. BTW, if you zoom on brick wall, you'll see how EF much softer compare to RF.
I noticed the difference on the brick wall, too
Canon is price gouging its loyal customer base on the majority of their EF L glass...some prices have jumped a few $hundred over 2020 prices. I thought the chip shortage was responsible, however, Sony GM lens and Nikon premium lens prices do not reflect similar price gouging.
Should I just switch to Sony? The E mount lenses seem much easier to come by.
I have the older EF lens and I know Canon came out with an updated version. Which one did you compare in this video?
Would love to go rf, but I've got the ef version, and I'll stick with it, like the comparison.
I have the EF version and that saves me a lot of bucks.
My 24-105 is a bit soft. It also still takes amazing pictures with my R6 and cost me 400$ instead of 1750$ (CAD) or 1200$ used. I aint a pixel peeper and I always work on the image sharpness in post.
good comparison
Got I just got the ef version for $200 for mirror less. I'm happy with it
Thank you That was very helpful!
How will the EF Version works on a R7?
can you use the RF on a micro 4/3rds camera? I own the BMPCC 4k I also have a metabones speedbooster, but wasnt sure about the "RF" lenses, I know the "EF" lens work fine.
Not at this time no. There are no RF to M43 adapters that we know of
What about the focus noise in the ef glass while filming?
This is a good point and something we should have mentioned. There will be noise during video with the EF like you said. That is a benefit to go with the RF version. Thanks for chiming in!
@@GearFocus thanks for the attention! 👍
@@pauloliveira1989 Our pleasure. We try when we can :)
What about the EF 24-105 MKII? That also so a better close up function and is more comparable to the RF cost.
Is a good lens but it costs three times the MkI. Not many would pay £1400 for a bit of improvement that you can easily fix during editing.
but you only buy it once
@@og3139 many have brought it. Where do you get your figures from? And as it has Macro, how do you easily ‘fix’ that 😂
When I said improvements I mean contrast, chromatic aberration and a bit of sharpness. It's obvious that you can't add macro and zoom range on editing.
Anything below 1 of magnification is not macro so all those zoom lenses with macro aren't really macro.
Talking about the price I bought an Ef 100 f2.8L IS Usm macro for £570, an Ef 24-70 F2.8L Usm for £550 and an Ef 24-105L IS Usm for £360.
My point is you can buy good equipment for less money and obviously if you have the cash...without any doubt you'll jump to the top of the range 😉
Does the ef work with the t6
yes
I've used the ef version for years. I just bought the adapter...any shortcomings in the ef version can be removed in lightroom. No way im buying this and the 70-200 2.8 for my r8.😂
People should know you can get the RF version for 800-900 used now, which I think makes the conclusion no longer valid
save a couple and buy used?....hmmmmm.....and the price of the new RF never went up more than $1099...it has been sold for less but no more?
This comment didn't age well lol
I bought a used RF for $720 in 2020..
I will be looking for a EF 24-105 lens. Very nice comparison
For ef 24-105 f4 is it the older version or newer version?
It is the newer version. But even the older version is a solid lens.
@@GearFocus sorry but what shown in the video is definitively the older version of the EF lens
Yep, definitely the older version shown
JEREMY STOP SMOKING THAT SHIT IS GOING TO KILL YOU 2:10
are you sure its him smoking
Thanks a lot 🙏👍
I personally don't think the RF lens are worth it unless you shoot sports and require fast AF features. Because apart from that and perhaps a tiny difference in image quality with an additional blade there is nothing more that the RF offers. In fact, the build quality of the RF, stinks. They break easily and cost massively much more. Instead of buying RF, I mostly buy EF. Glass does count but the man behind the glass counts more. I would rather shoot good photos, save money, and still have great glass than break the bank, and possibly the RF lens itself I was not careful enough. IF you shoot good pictures, the additional quality of the images does not make a major difference but if you don't then the quality of the images would not matter. Sports journalists require RF for the AF speed but to be honest, I am personally happy using second-hand, good EF glass on my R6 MK2 with a heavier pocket. I can perhaps spend the excess on travelling the world and going to more places to take photos instead of selling a kidney to buy an RF glass and waiting for 5 to 6 months until I can save to travel. Nothing wrong in using EF Lseiries lens. A good photo is a good photo and people who look at them won't even care about the image quality but rather the quality of the shot itself. EF L series lenses are still top-quality professional lens. The RF pL series prices are a piss-take mate and they are clearly not worth the money.
i Have the EF and the RF, wide open the RF is way sharper than the EF at all focal lengths. and at 5.6 miles away, it takes f9-f14 to finally the EF version to reach the RF in terms of image quality and that's only because of the diffraction that starts at a very early f8 on the RF version. Otherwise, there would not be a comparison between the two.
the caveat on the mark 1 24-105mm EF is the aperture blade ribbon failures. Even the mark 2 has issues, although it is much better than the mark 1 in this respect. The RF version doesn't have this problem at all. Used - no warranty either.
That lens is about 18 years old by now. If it hasnt broken yet, it surely won't either. If something happens, it's bargain chips on the used market vs a new RF. People shouldn't be afraid of used gear; I've been shooting all my life 100% used and never had any issue.
@@stephangauthier911 that is not true. Ever heard of MTTF? If the lens has been sitting in a drawer for 18 years, unused, and then someone starts using it, it WILL fail. It's only a matter of time. Caveat Emptor. Just cos you've had a good run, doesn't mean others have. You have a sample rate of a big fat ONE. Statistical, it's of zero worth when it comes to analysing things.
@@davepastern yeah but who leaves their lenses on the shelf for 18 years?
I'm 4 bodies in and 9 lenses. Plus 2 tripods, a set of nd filters and a lowepro camera bag. I'd be out thousands and thousands if I bought it new.
@@stephangauthier911 you missed my point. If I use a lens very lightly, it will take longer to reach MTTF. It doesn't change the major design flaw in this particular lens, that isn't a matter of if, but when it'll fail. The mark II improved the ribbon cable failure problem, the RF eliminates it completely.
I'm not arguing that you can't get winners out of used gear - you can. I'm arguing that with this particularly lens, it has a very high failure rate, certainly much, much higher than other lenses. You seem to be failing to grasp that.
@@davepastern I've never heard such claims before. I'll just buy another one. I'll still be saving lots of quiche.
Just got the r8. No way im buying the RF versions of my L's. The adapter works just fine. 😂😂😂
New one!
I sold my EF for the RF version
So did u face any difference in results ??
@@shubhamgirdhar8543 I find it sharper and don't need to attach adapter
honestly? they both suck! i've used the EF version for years alongside 5D mark 2 and than mark 3... Even though at the time it was the only lens that covers the range from 24 to 105 in my bag.... i could never get satisfied 100% with this lens....same goes for 24-70 2.8 the first version. The RF is not much of an upgrade too, rented this lens couple times to use with EOS R... NO NO NO waste of money imo, better get ef 24-105 from used market if you dont want spend a fortune on 24-70 today.
Not much difference definitely not worth upgrading
Add the adapter and the price evens up
The standard adapter is $100…
Don’t compare just get sigma.. face palm.
The couple of hundred dollars you save on the EF you end up spending on the adaptor..so for me I'll be getting the RF glass every time.
Very true
The difference for a EF vs RF for something like an 85mm L lens is much more than a couple of hundred.
😀🙊👌👍😁✌🏼👏
COUPLE HUNDRED SAVED BY BUYING USED? NOT FAIR PRICE COMPARISON!
NEW R VS OLD EF
Given that EF lenses are being phased out by Canon and will eventually reach EOF in terms of support and parts, why are we having this conversation?!? lol
EF is better than RF
Why ? :)