My agency has just re-equipped with R5 and the 24-105mm RF f4 lenses, and I have to say I'm mighty impressed. The image sharpness is excellent, and seems consistently better/sharper than the well used 24-70mm f2.8 EF lenses I had before. And the 24-105mm focal range is so useful!
@@sonicvboom not that I've noticed, sounds like an odd rumour from the internet... Or are you thinking of the much cheaper Canon 24-105 lens which is f7.1 at the long end?
@@AndySnapNo, I was referring specifically to the L-series. Based on my research, the T-stop (transmission of light) of that lens is not really an "F4"; But rather, it's sitting much closer to an F4.3 to be exact.
@@sonicvboomI have EF 24-70 f/2.8 II, and it dims about 1/3 stop at 70mm. I wanted to share this info because I think your suspicion might be correct. I wouldn’t be surprised if this lens dimmed 1/2 stop at 105mm. It’s not a big deal in photography, but it becomes annoying in video (adjusting ND, raising exposure in post adds noise, etc).
I recently bought the STM version as my first RF glass (I had only a few EF primes to pair w/my RP using the commlite adapter) and I have to admit that this kit lens has reallly surprised me. It is decently sharp, cheap and lightweight, Definetly worth the money! The only downside is the fact that it is a extremely low lens but very fun to use for daylight photography
So the same as with the EF 24-105 IS STM - very solid lens unless you need a shallow depth of field. Loved mine on the 80D but on the full frame R the Tamron 35-150 was a better fit for me
I have the f4 versions of the EF and RF. Keeping both… The RF for when I am using the R5 and keeping the EF for when using the C300 M3 and the C70 with the 0.71x speedboaster. The best of both worlds
There is a Custom Setting on page 2 called “Same Expo. for new Aperture.” This will allow you to shoot in Manual mode with a variable aperture lens and then it will change your ISO and/or shutter speed to compensate for the zoom changing your aperture. Thanks for the excellent review.
I got the non L 24 105 and I am quite happy with the decision after Gordon's video. I also use the 70 200 for long end so I don't mind having a darker aperture
The smart money is on the 24-105 non L for travel and keep a 50mm 1.8 in your pocket/bag for portraits/low light as f4 is still bad for these scenarios anyway
I think the weather sealing is the answer ... especially as an architecture and landscape shooter. That's the ONLY one that matters that one has over the other. The other AF mode vs. not with switch is just a creature comfort. I go with the variable 24-105, vs. fixed f4. IQ is always the key .. IQ = IQ .. then next is weather sealing.
Hi, Greetings from Norway. Great presentation! R5, mostly photos, no vlogging but some family filming. I bought the RF 24- f4-7.1 because of weight, and I'm very satisfied. (I earlier replaced my EF 24-105 f.4 with the EF 24-70 for the same reason on the 5DIV. Better to carry around.) I can even bring my RF 70-200 f.4 without being overloaded on hiking. I can even put the RF 35 f 1.8 in another pocket for blurring backgrounds or macro. Portraits: I'll keep my EF 85 f.1.4 for a while.
I have owned both of the RF 24-105mm lenses for quite a while. My daughter and I shoot together quite often, and share equipment. As I purchased my first EOS R in the beginning of 2019, the 24-105mm f/4 L was the only native kit option available to me. It wasn't until later when I purchased a second EOS R, that the 24-105mm f/4-7.1 was available, and at the time the f/4 L was not available. In your comparison, you mentioned that the images didn't look great at 24mm. I think this is mainly due to distortion correction needed at 24mm. However, last year I had the focus of our camera bodies calibrated and then the lenses calibrated to the bodies. Afterwards my daughter, who is more of a pixel peeper, noticed that the images we shot at 24mm were improved. However, it did not seem to make much, if any, difference at 105mm. All that said, we rarely shoot at 24mm. Most of our collection is shot at 35mm or narrower, so we accept the quality as is at 24mm. (over 99% > 35mm) If we plan on trying to get important shots at wide angle, we find it best to use a prime anyway. We recently opted to get a second 24-105mm f/4 L, when one was available used at the local camera shop. For us, after using both lenses for several years, the choice was not hard to make. The f/4 L is much better choice when used indoors. We found that the contrast and color rendition seems to be better in many situations, especially in lower light situations, regardless of stopping down to the same fstop or not. It might not be something I can measure or prove, but I find with photography, subjective things are important too. That said, if you are only concerned with overall sharpness, the "kit" lense is just as good, if not better.
@@sonicvboom It costs a bit more. The f4 is „good enough“ for us. We had one as a loaner for a trip. It was nice to have the extra stop in dimly lit churches. However it was also heavier, which we noticed when carrying it all day while sight seeing. I like taking a small prime with me to use if the f4 isn’t enough.
I found the Tamron 35-150 to be a very pleasant compromise, offering good image quality wide open (very good stopped down), as well as weather sealing, accurate auto focus, excellent stabilization and a light weight for what it covers. Considering it remains a F2.8-F3.2 (the difference in light is negligible) up to ~65mm, it covers the more action oriented aspect of the 24-70 quite well, while providing a longer range than the standard 105mm used by F4 lenses (though of course both the standard f2.8 and f4 lenses go wider). However, the one other zoom I (and no doubt many others) tend to carry is something covering either X-24 or X-35mm which mitigates this factor somewhat.
A thought; if you have been a long term Canon shooter, then, the EF L lens with a RF adapter could be the best choice provided the lens is already in your bag. I own a lot of EF L lens and they work extremely well on my R6 body. Selling the EF glass to purchase the newer RF seems wasteful unless money doesn't matter. I have an excellent Sony stereo condenser mic which I clip to my belt if I have a noisy focusing lens. It prevents the pickup of the noise and is easy to use. The cost of the adapter, once allocated over all your legacy glass is minimal and the extra length minor compared to the upgrade costs. Thanks for your review.
It depends on the lens. RF 35/1.8 and RF 85/2 are far superior lenses to EF 35/2 and EF 85/1.8 with better (far better with the 85) image quality and added flexibility/capabilities. To bad the RF 50/1.8 was NOT build the same (1:2 light macro, stabilised) but hey - Tamron 45/1.8 does the job nicely (only 1:3 but still)
I own a EF 24-70 f4 L IS and sold my RF 24-105 L f4 IS. It’s night and day in the image corners. The older 24-70 f4 EF lens, which replaced my EF 24-105 f4 L IS for exactly the same corner issues, is considerably sharper. Even the at 70mm where is maxes out the zoom reach and lenses get usually softer the old EF is at least equally sharp as the RF lens. So I’m giving up the 24-105 concept. The 24-105 kit dark zoom, without owning i, has some wild distortion and therefor more likely it has to be in the corners considerably softer.
funny. same here. I use my old EF24-70/4L with adapter and bought a RF24-105/4L for a little more compact combi. the RF24-105/4L looses out of the middle and i brought it back to the dealer. Sad, i think about changing back to EF Body.
I, too, still have the EF version - it's been my "walkaround" lens for more than 15 years. I was an early adopter for the EOS-R - my trusty old EOS1 DS-ii died, and I had to replace it. Getting a couple of RF lenses with it stretched my budget, so, I looked at the tests and reviews, and kept my EF. The kit lens didn't exist at that time. So long as I don't mind the size and weight, there's still no reason to change out my EF. It still gets used at least once a week. :D
So, the low end kit lens is good enough for most of us. If this is what we can expect from Canon in the future, l may have to buy RF instead of EF as I planned.
I chose the Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art when I compared it with the Canon EF 24-105 f/4 for my Canon 5D Mk3 a few years ago - worth a look although it's built (and weighs) like a tank.
I sold all my RF glass, including the heavy 28-70 f/2, and bought used EF L series. Used EF here in Brazil is so cheap right now, it makes no sense paying so much for RF. I also sold Canon's EF to RF adaptor and got the chinese Commlite adaptor with variable ND. It's so easy to change from videos to photo right now and swap lenses without having to unscrew ND filters, step up rings, etc. Also, I found out that the EF 16-35mm 4 IS is great for vlogging, no strange sensor wobbles with the R5, and it's a great combination with the RF 50mm 1.2, that I can also use in crop mode.
I agree about the wobble. Canon really need to address that so you can choose between lens and sensor stabilisation. I am lucky that I have an Eos R without ibis - and I can use my lenses without the background making everyone feel a bit sea sick! I can’t say that I will be investing in any EF lenses though, they seem to hold their value quite well - but one day I would like to think that there will be some bargains to be had!
@gordon Could you further describe "low light"? Is everything indoors low light? Is it a normal family meal or a dimmed romantic dinner? Or even a cozy tv evening? Oh and the f/4 costs €1474 which is still more than the 24-105 f/4.0-7.1 + 50 f/1.8 + 85 f/2.0 combined (€1387) !!
Here's a bit different perspective: The "kit" lens is much lighter and cheaper - that is correct. BUT, eventually, you'll encounter less than optimal light conditions but would still like to take the shot with your "pro camera" rather than resorting to your iPhone. To match the shot you'd be able to take with the F/4 L, you'll need a flash. I'd rather get the heftier lens and be able to take a beautiful shot, than going cheap and being unable to do so. Or have to bother with lugging a flash around. I am still on APS-C DSLR but moving from a F/3.5-4.5 zoom lens, to a fixed aperture 1.8 lens (although a bit bulkier, heavier and with less range) completely changed my experience. I'm now able to take shots that I could never take before and even at F/1.8 I'm often forced to go to 3000-4000 ISO which is more than I'd normally want to shoot at with the 7d2.
stupendous presentation - I think I'll stick with my Tamron 35 - 150 f 2.8 / 4; I've been getting awesome photos with it. Thanks for the great review it did help me make this decision....
Very nice video--practical real world experiences with each of the lenses considered. I've been using the 24-105 f/4L for most of my walk around work, and have found it to be both versatile and reliable. That said, as someone who used the Olympus OM-D E-M1 for many years prior to obtaining an EOS R, I still don't find the Canon options as convenient, or versatile, as my Olympus kit. In that case, the 12-40mm and 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro lenses matched with the E-M1 body, provided far more range, as a set, while not incurring a weight penalty. In the end, I am forced to concede that for day to day use, in decent to good light, the Olympus was a better solution for me. The Canon comes into its own in indoor, or challenging lighting scenarios, which frankly, I don't encounter as often as I thought I would. For my Canon kit to offer versatility on par with my Olympus, I would need the 24-105 f/4 L, and another lens to cover the range from 100 to 300mm and at a constant maximum aperture not less than f/5.6. With those limitations in mind, I'd be looking at some serious weight penalties, and some serious cost as well. I do hope that Olympus, or OM Digital, as the case is now, will continue to invest in that system, and offer some new pro bodies with upgraded video specs. Ultimately, for me, I think future photography will be defined by a smaller sensor form factor unless, by some miracle, Canon opens up its RF ecosystem to third party manufacturers who can offer smaller, lighter, and more versatile lens options.
Just sold all my Olympus gear and going back to canon….(?)! I had the M10 that I broke, that body is very weak! I should have gone with the M1, then I’m sure I would keep be keeping it!
I will still be here watching your videos, watching videos that you want to make 😊 Yes seeing a van project come together sounds interesting and fun. See you for your next video 👍🙂
You can get the EF 24-105 that's in a good condition for the same price you can an RF non L that's practically brand new on MPB. EF L wins for me hand down!
It’s like you’re reading my mind. I bought a Gen 1 EF 24-105/4 but it kept throwing a code so I returned it the next day. Two weeks later I got the RF 23-105/4.
@@mirasga yeah, that what I figured. I priced out how much the repair would cost and decided a factory refurbished Canon lens was not much more expensive. Fortunately, they were back in stock.
I bought the 24-105 RF F4 yesterday. Am hoping that I get great results with it. Was able to snap a bargain and get it $400 off In Australia. $1699. Enjoyed watching your video on it.
Gosh, I had both EF L 24-105mm versions and thought they were awful, soft and never really sharp. Ive seen other reviews not saying the RF is any better. I believe the Sony 24-105mm is a better lens when they are compared. I doubt any of these will cope with a 100mp sensor when it comes
The *RF* version is not any better? But the draw distance between the RF glass and the sensor is a lot closer though, hence the images should be sharper, no?
@@sonicvboom I dont know about the closer thing but the christoher frost review is revealing, hes not negative about the 24-105 RF, but it only seems the same as the EF versions
I was able to save a bit on the RF 24-105 f/4 L by getting it as a kit lens with my R6. But it is a hefty lens indeed.. not so much as many other L lenses, but still. I thus also recognize the arm fatigue when trying to vlog ;-) Actually I got the battery grip shortly after this combination for the purpose of balancing the lens a bit better. And for more battery life and comfortable portrait shooting off-course :-)
I really don't understand the argument that the EF lenses are not worth buying in 2021 if you have an R-series camera? You can still use your EF glass with an adapter on your R camera! Why wasting money for new RF glass if you're not entirely convinced of its quality (like here)? Simply wait for Canon or third party to give you your required quality lens! ;)
You forgot to talk about the macro capabilities of the kit zoom which is superior to the L version. I bought it just for that reason, I took many small jewelry product shots, so it is perfect for that.
That's a very good point. Ben was doing this from his perspective, but for others, there are other aspects which are make or break. I also really value very close focusing, not just for macro photos, but for showing products in videos.
13:05 problem: what if you already have a EF24-105 coming form a Dslr? Is it worth to upgrade? Apparently not. Is it worth to pay the full price for the RF F4 if you can find the EF version for 1/4 of the price? Again, is there really any benefit from the RF version for the difference in price if you don't own a R5 with 45MP? Debatable...
Hi. I was lucky enough to see the original high resolution images on a 4K monitor before RUclips compressed the images and at 20MP there was very little difference between all three lenses. I couldn’t tell you whether there was any difference if shot on the R5 at 45MP, but there is definitely a benefit in using RF lenses on the motor less bodies - hence me selling my lens to essentially buy the same lens again. It is smaller (no adaptor in the way) it has a control ring on it that opens up the opportunity for controlling ISO for example. And in most instances the RF versions are optically better, just not a massive leap forward with the 24-105 unfortunately.
I've got the EF 24-105 f4 L lens and the RF 24-105 f4-7.1which I bought with my RP. Both are fantastic lenses, but f7.1 really is a disappointment when the light goes down. Wish they stuck with f5.6 as max aperture. I have lots of EF lenses that will work perfectly for now, I might invest in the control ring adapter, I have the canon simple adapter, which I find to be flawless. I really would like the RF lens with a bit more light gathering ability. High ISO does have it's limitations. I am looking for a clean used copy of the old EF 28-105 or EF 28-135 for walking around. I would love Canon to build a RF 24-70 f4 to keep the price down. The RP with a small lens is very easy to take along. They will probably have one available in a few years. I can wait.
Hi John, since you own both EF and RF versions, I've been told the *RF* F4 24-105mm *L* series severely dims when zoomed in, and that it is *not* a constant F4. Is this true?
@@sonicvboom I have the EF 24-105 L version which is a constant f4 aperture (stays f4 at all zoom lengths) My RF 24-105 is the NON -L version (the variable aperture "kit" zoom) which is f4.0 only at 24mm, as soon as you zoom it darkens the aperture to finally be f7.1 at 105mm. The RF 24-105L version is a constant aperture (f4.0 at all focal lengths, doesn't change as you zoom) and is much more expensive. But it is supposed to be a much improved lens. And the "L" version does not get noticably darker as you zoom out. It also costs about $1100. Less if you buy it with a camera body (R5/6 or R/RP). I bought the cheaper lens because I wanted it to be small and light, with the knowledge that I could use my better EF-L version if I needed to, and didn't mind the larger size and weight. But both lenses are fantastic. With regards to dimming in the lens while zooming the L lens does NOT get darker. The cheaper non-L lens does. But the mirror less cameras adjust for this and handle high ISO really well. Don't be afraid to use higher ISO or even better use Auto ISO. Mirror less is so much better at this than DSLR's were. And if it sounds like I'm contradicting my original post, I am a little bit. I am disappointed that they went to f7.1, when they already make an EF lens from f3.5-5.6. Higher ISO does solve this but f7.1 is 2/3 stop darker than f5.6 and neither makes much Bokeh which everyone loves. But I do love the lens (both actually) but admit the shortcomings. You will be happy with either lens, just learn their limitations. Good luck 🤞
Thanks for a very interesting and comprehensive review which was a bonus on top of Gordon's original reviews. I should advise I don't shoot video, so I am looking for pure stills performance. I got a couple of R6 bodies and had to decide where to go to as regards RF glass. I decided to cover my range with 3 lenses: RF10-24 (road mapped, but not yet announced), the 24-105L F4 and 100-500L - giving me essentially a full range from 10-500mm in three lenses. I was not intimidated by the weight as I don't hold lenses at arm's length. I shoot with a lot of super-tele zooms: Sigma 150-600c and 60-600s, plus EF 100-400 MkII, (venerable but excellent) EF 28-300L and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM MkII. That said, since I shoot mostly hand-held, I train for it: I do weights several times a week to make sure I have the strength to hold the lenses steady for extended periods. I got the 100-500 with my bodies but due to COVID chaos (I live in NZ and we're at the end of a long supply chain) my 24-105 was delayed by 5 months! In desperation I got, as a stopgap, the RF24-240, and was actually very impressed at the results: accepting that one has to use the image correction algorithms, but once applied they do a great job. I was sent the 24-105L f/4 unit at last and am happy with the performance. My R5 will be coming in the next month and it will be interesting to consider lens performance against the much higher resolution of that sensor. I already have a couple of the MkI EF version for use with my 5DIII, IV and DsR bodies, and they do an OK job on those bodies. I am not sure if there is one had been made, but it would be interesting to see a comparison for the constituency that is considering a choice between the 24-105 and 24-240 kit lenses.
I'm too lazy to look at prices, but I'm thinking if you buy the "kit lens", you'd have enough money left over, to, IN ADDITION to the kit lens, buy TWO fast primes - the 16/2.8 for very comfortable vlogging, and, the 85/2 for gorgeous portraits, and, STILL have about $150 (U.S.) left over. And, that's IF you paid retail for the 24-105 kit, which you shouldn't, as there are many used/refurbished options.
@@sonicvboom I'm referring to the EF 24-105 F/4 not the RF variant. When you use it for video and zoom the image will dim, which means it does not have a constant T-stop.
So the 24-105 f4L is a magic lens. well worth the money. I used it on my Canon R initially. I then sold the R and bought the R8. The R8 with this lens is magic.
My gratitude to Ben for buying an EOS R, I thought I was the only fool. I am struggling with the autofocus. I end up blaming the cheaper DSLR for not being able to focus smartly and quickly, as compared to R5 or R6. But if there are any tips and tricks, please enlighten me!
Thank you for the good review, and thanks to Ben in particular. Just one question: Doesn‘t the „Focus/Control“ switch on the kit lens turn AF off or on respectively?
u don't recommend me buying the EF lens for my R10? it gives almost the same results as the RFs ...? even with the adopter it would normally still be perfect for what i need it (photography in pitboxes , pitlane ,... ?) plus doesn't cost me an arm and a leg
Since the F4 24-105mm RF [L-series] does not differ much from the regular 24-105mm RF, I wonder if the F2.8 24-70mm RF L-glass is significally sharper than the F4 RF 24-105mm L from an optical *quality* point of view?
@@cameralabsSince you have had the privilege of trying out both lenses... If you *had* to choose one out of the two, which one would you opt for? The F4 24-105 for the lighter weight and an extra 35mm reach at half the cost of the F2.8? Or would you go for 24-70 for the low light/ faster lens capability?
@@sonicvboom if I could afford it and I had an R5, I'd et the 24-70 2.8. If I couldn't afford it, or had a lower res body like the R6, I'd et the 24-105 f4L
Hi Ezra, I can only talk about my experience using the EF 24-105 on my Eos R - and it works ‘fine’ in terms of auto focus. I would say similar to using it on my DSLR (I still have a 5D3). But what was on test here, both lenses on the R6 is significantly better autofocus. It’s the camera more than the lenses though.
You can grab the EF 24-105 F4L used at same prices as a new RF 24-105 kit. I suggest the EF F4L all the way, it is simply better, and at the used price very good value. On top of that, the RF kit lens is one of the hardest lens to resell on the used market. No one is buying it, even at $100. I never recommend anyone to buy any gear that's hard to resell.
Have never understood that someone chooses this lense, when all 24-70 are much better (and if you need a little more length, just take a few steps forward).
For starters, this lens is cheaper than the F2.8 by almost 2.5x? In addition to the savings, it is lighter and more compact. Plus, it has all the weather/ dust sealing of an L-series...?
i buy the kit lens as it was only 150quid more than the body only on my gray import R6 thinking i would make a bit of profit on it ..but i was pleasantly surprised how good it is and thers a few on eBay now and for the price of the L 24-105 you can buy the kit 24-105 a new RF 50mm f1.8 and the now available Yungnuo 85mm F1.8AF thats a little better than the old EF85 F1.8 for the same money and have a much more versatile kit .... when the delayed RF 18-45 non L comes out there not much you cannot do EDIT i am mistaken about the Yungnuo will have to keep using the EF 85/100
I’ve owned the EF 24-105mm f4L, the EF 24-105mm f4L II and the RF 24-105mm f4L. My next door neighbour has the RF 24-105mm f4 -7.1 which I’ve used and compared shots to the f4L version on both a EOS R and on a R6 and my results are different the f4L is definitely better in the centre and in the corners even at 24mm so the versions both Gordon and you used must have been worse than mine. As to the EF versions the MKII was almost identical to the RF f4L version.
Sorry, we had to work with what we had. I am not sure I would have been able to carry any more lenses! There was also the EF kit lens that we didn’t compare.
For the EF mount I've had the 24-105 STM and L lenses on my 6D. The STM was great for the price, and I think the focusing was faster, and definitely quieter than the L. The IS was also noiseless, and overall the lens was smaller and less weight. At less length, shooting inside lets you get more in when you stand as far back as you can go. Macro is better at 0.4m distance as opposed to 0.7m on the L. The only thing that lets it down is the F4 soon goes up when you zoom in even slightly, and the optics aren't quite as sharp and images don't look as crisp when cropped, plus no weather sealing. That said, I was disappointed by the L for the shortcomings given the much higher price. 0.7m is not very far and by the time you crop, you're probably negating the superior optics because the STM lets you get so much closer if you are taking a pic of a bumblebee on a flower for example.
@@pumkinfamely4963 I got mine cheap too. I kept the L in the end because the bokeh looks so much better. The cheaper lenses are good, but you notice the bad optics when the blur has artefacts in it.
I’m using the sigma Art series with the RF adapter on my Eos R. The lens is a behemoth, I could use it for hand to hand combat, but I love it and prefer it over the EF.
@@HilleCine I used to use the lens on 6D, the auto focus is better on the R, even with the adapter. The only thing I wish I had done was bought the adapter with the control ring, so I could use it as, maybe am aperture ring.
Yes, Gordon has centre and edge comparisons for each of the RF lenses and I believe high resolution files on his website to look at. I was trying to keep the video as short as possible - which is tricky when comparing multiple lenses.
The RF 24-105 F4 L is a very good lens but unfortunately for a lot of people who bought it, the budget version turned out to be just as good in most circumstances. I do use my camera frequently in lower light situations, so the L version is better suited to my purposes. Having said that, I possess an EF 100 F2.8 L, so there's no reason I couldn't have "made do" with the budget 24-105, other than my being very lazy and not wanting to carrying around extra lenses.
@@sonicvboom - The people who purchased the L version spent more than those who waited for the budget lens. Good for the budget lens owners, not so good for many of those L purchasers who would have been just as happy with the cheaper lens.
@@hedley.bradstone-unbridledBut the *L* lens has a constant *F4* aperture though...? In addition to the weather/ dust sealing, isn't the *L* series worth the additional cost in the long run?
Interesting. The photo of the wind turbine for the comparison may not be a good idea because of heat simmer. No lens can perform well in that situation. I am surprised the RF f4 version is not very sharp at the center at 24 mm. Other youtube reviews showed very sharp result at the center at 24 mm.
hi i have a canon eos 5d mark III camera and i have the ef 24-105mm zoom lens but when i use it to make videos it doesn't stay focused on the subject as i move the camera around forward back etc..is there something im doing wrong anything in the camera menu i need to adjust?
Quick Timmy review: the affordable RF lens has an absolutely horrendous maximum aperture at most of its focal range, whereas the f4 RF lens is expensive. Get the EF lens used. 😜
Would you say the EF is totally unusable on an R-serien mount?.. Personally, i can afford a used EF version, but the RF version is quite out of my reach.
You get build quality and weather sealing when you buy an L, and a heavier lens because of the extra glass required to get a larger maximum aperture. Weather sealing also means dust proofing - zooming an L lens doesn’t pull dust into it. You don’t necessarily buy an L lens to get better optical quality. Bounce the L and the STM on the ground a few times, roll them in the mud, then do your tests again. See which one still produces good photos.
my 2nd Lens i wish or Tamron 35-150mm 2.8-F4.. i have 50mm 1.8, with this Lens plus 85mm..F2 or Viltrox 85mm RF 1.8 i think its Enough to capture the World.. in daily life.
@@benharveyphotography Thanks I did hear you mention that later in the video. We love the Norfolk coast though usually we stay on the north - Wells, Brancaster etc. Recommended for small children!
While every one is entitled to their own opinion, I have to dissagre that the EF version is a bad investment. The EF version has already deprciated and if you buy a mint S/H one it will serve you many more years to come and it will always be worth what you paid for it. The RF L version is massively overpriced and it's only going to drop in value S/H. The Value is with the EF version in my opinion. I also think that the ability to use a Drop in CPL filter with a EF to RF adapter is astonishingly useful and something that the RF version can't offer.
Not sure if I'm the only one to remember one more model - *24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 STM for DSLRs* . So it makes five of them. But the forgotten one is probably the worst, so it wasn't worth mentioning...
@@cameralabs I thought you said "two DSLR models"... But there are three of them actually. If you meant the f/4 USM and the STM DSLR ones, then sorry that I misunderstood. In this case the forgotten one would be *24-105 f/4 L USM II* . Because the one shown here is the original (version I). And version II is quite more expensive but has some advantages too...
![[TF2] The Russian Bear Trap](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YFNSwz2_rOA/mqdefault.jpg)
My agency has just re-equipped with R5 and the 24-105mm RF f4 lenses, and I have to say I'm mighty impressed. The image sharpness is excellent, and seems consistently better/sharper than the well used 24-70mm f2.8 EF lenses I had before. And the 24-105mm focal range is so useful!
Hi Andrew, I've been told the *RF* F4 24-105mm *L* series severely dims when zoomed in, and that it is *not* a constant F4. Is this true?
@@sonicvboom not that I've noticed, sounds like an odd rumour from the internet... Or are you thinking of the much cheaper Canon 24-105 lens which is f7.1 at the long end?
@@AndySnapNo, I was referring specifically to the L-series. Based on my research, the T-stop (transmission of light) of that lens is not really an "F4"; But rather, it's sitting much closer to an F4.3 to be exact.
@@sonicvboom I use the rf 24-105 f4 L and don’t have this issue.
@@sonicvboomI have EF 24-70 f/2.8 II, and it dims about 1/3 stop at 70mm. I wanted to share this info because I think your suspicion might be correct. I wouldn’t be surprised if this lens dimmed 1/2 stop at 105mm. It’s not a big deal in photography, but it becomes annoying in video (adjusting ND, raising exposure in post adds noise, etc).
I recently bought the STM version as my first RF glass (I had only a few EF primes to pair w/my RP using the commlite adapter) and I have to admit that this kit lens has reallly surprised me. It is decently sharp, cheap and lightweight, Definetly worth the money! The only downside is the fact that it is a extremely low lens but very fun to use for daylight photography
"The only down side is the fact that it is a extremely low lens"? What does that mean?
@@sonicvboom maybe slow since it's a variable F4 to F7.1 lens
@@cornlourd yeap, that's what I meant to say. I think i mispelled slow there
So the same as with the EF 24-105 IS STM - very solid lens unless you need a shallow depth of field. Loved mine on the 80D but on the full frame R the Tamron 35-150 was a better fit for me
I have the f4 versions of the EF and RF. Keeping both… The RF for when I am using the R5 and keeping the EF for when using the C300 M3 and the C70 with the 0.71x speedboaster. The best of both worlds
There is a Custom Setting on page 2 called “Same Expo. for new Aperture.” This will allow you to shoot in Manual mode with a variable aperture lens and then it will change your ISO and/or shutter speed to compensate for the zoom changing your aperture.
Thanks for the excellent review.
Thanks for this, I had no idea this feature existed as a work-around.
this function isn't on my Canon RP tho?
I still use my old ef 24-105. Not the best lens for my eos r but still gets the job done. Happy i did not sell it.
I got the non L 24 105 and I am quite happy with the decision after Gordon's video. I also use the 70 200 for long end so I don't mind having a darker aperture
The smart money is on the 24-105 non L for travel and keep a 50mm 1.8 in your pocket/bag for portraits/low light as f4 is still bad for these scenarios anyway
I'd agree, or the rf 35 1.8
@@cameralabs Exactly! And thanks for providing great content as always Gordon
This is exactly what I did with my R8!
Yeah, not so much. The L lens is head and shoulders above the non L lens.
@@shieldaigbencher People who test lenses for a living disagree so would love to the evidence that led you to this opinion
I think the weather sealing is the answer ... especially as an architecture and landscape shooter. That's the ONLY one that matters that one has over the other. The other AF mode vs. not with switch is just a creature comfort. I go with the variable 24-105, vs. fixed f4. IQ is always the key .. IQ = IQ .. then next is weather sealing.
Hi, Greetings from Norway. Great presentation! R5, mostly photos, no vlogging but some family filming. I bought the RF 24- f4-7.1 because of weight, and I'm very satisfied. (I earlier replaced my EF 24-105 f.4 with the EF 24-70 for the same reason on the 5DIV. Better to carry around.) I can even bring my RF 70-200 f.4 without being overloaded on hiking. I can even put the RF 35 f 1.8 in another pocket for blurring backgrounds or macro. Portraits: I'll keep my EF 85 f.1.4 for a while.
I have owned both of the RF 24-105mm lenses for quite a while. My daughter and I shoot together quite often, and share equipment. As I purchased my first EOS R in the beginning of 2019, the 24-105mm f/4 L was the only native kit option available to me. It wasn't until later when I purchased a second EOS R, that the 24-105mm f/4-7.1 was available, and at the time the f/4 L was not available.
In your comparison, you mentioned that the images didn't look great at 24mm. I think this is mainly due to distortion correction needed at 24mm. However, last year I had the focus of our camera bodies calibrated and then the lenses calibrated to the bodies. Afterwards my daughter, who is more of a pixel peeper, noticed that the images we shot at 24mm were improved. However, it did not seem to make much, if any, difference at 105mm. All that said, we rarely shoot at 24mm. Most of our collection is shot at 35mm or narrower, so we accept the quality as is at 24mm. (over 99% > 35mm) If we plan on trying to get important shots at wide angle, we find it best to use a prime anyway.
We recently opted to get a second 24-105mm f/4 L, when one was available used at the local camera shop. For us, after using both lenses for several years, the choice was not hard to make. The f/4 L is much better choice when used indoors. We found that the contrast and color rendition seems to be better in many situations, especially in lower light situations, regardless of stopping down to the same fstop or not. It might not be something I can measure or prove, but I find with photography, subjective things are important too. That said, if you are only concerned with overall sharpness, the "kit" lense is just as good, if not better.
Since you shoot a lot of in-doors, I am suprised you never considered the F2.8 24-70mm? Do you find the *F4* sufficient for its low light performance?
@@sonicvboom It costs a bit more. The f4 is „good enough“ for us.
We had one as a loaner for a trip. It was nice to have the extra stop in dimly lit churches. However it was also heavier, which we noticed when carrying it all day while sight seeing.
I like taking a small prime with me to use if the f4 isn’t enough.
I found the Tamron 35-150 to be a very pleasant compromise, offering good image quality wide open (very good stopped down), as well as weather sealing, accurate auto focus, excellent stabilization and a light weight for what it covers.
Considering it remains a F2.8-F3.2 (the difference in light is negligible) up to ~65mm, it covers the more action oriented aspect of the 24-70 quite well, while providing a longer range than the standard 105mm used by F4 lenses (though of course both the standard f2.8 and f4 lenses go wider). However, the one other zoom I (and no doubt many others) tend to carry is something covering either X-24 or X-35mm which mitigates this factor somewhat.
I combine mine with the RF 15-30 IS STM. And RF 100-400 these days. Replacing a EF 24-105 IS STM, a 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8
I got the kit lens, but I splurged on the RF 14-35 f4 and its a dream.
A thought; if you have been a long term Canon shooter, then, the EF L lens with a RF adapter could be the best choice provided the lens is already in your bag. I own a lot of EF L lens and they work extremely well on my R6 body. Selling the EF glass to purchase the newer RF seems wasteful unless money doesn't matter. I have an excellent Sony stereo condenser mic which I clip to my belt if I have a noisy focusing lens. It prevents the pickup of the noise and is easy to use. The cost of the adapter, once allocated over all your legacy glass is minimal and the extra length minor compared to the upgrade costs. Thanks for your review.
It depends on the lens. RF 35/1.8 and RF 85/2 are far superior lenses to EF 35/2 and EF 85/1.8 with better (far better with the 85) image quality and added flexibility/capabilities. To bad the RF 50/1.8 was NOT build the same (1:2 light macro, stabilised) but hey - Tamron 45/1.8 does the job nicely (only 1:3 but still)
I own a EF 24-70 f4 L IS and sold my RF 24-105 L f4 IS. It’s night and day in the image corners. The older 24-70 f4 EF lens, which replaced my EF 24-105 f4 L IS for exactly the same corner issues, is considerably sharper. Even the at 70mm where is maxes out the zoom reach and lenses get usually softer the old EF is at least equally sharp as the RF lens. So I’m giving up the 24-105 concept. The 24-105 kit dark zoom, without owning i, has some wild distortion and therefor more likely it has to be in the corners considerably softer.
funny. same here. I use my old EF24-70/4L with adapter and bought a RF24-105/4L for a little more compact combi. the RF24-105/4L looses out of the middle and i brought it back to the dealer. Sad, i think about changing back to EF Body.
I, too, still have the EF version - it's been my "walkaround" lens for more than 15 years. I was an early adopter for the EOS-R - my trusty old EOS1 DS-ii died, and I had to replace it. Getting a couple of RF lenses with it stretched my budget, so, I looked at the tests and reviews, and kept my EF. The kit lens didn't exist at that time.
So long as I don't mind the size and weight, there's still no reason to change out my EF. It still gets used at least once a week. :D
I just bought the EF version of the f/4L (but the mark II) for use with my M50. I am impressed.
So, the low end kit lens is good enough for most of us.
If this is what we can expect from Canon in the future, l may have to buy RF instead of EF as I planned.
It’s surprisingly good for a non-l series lens. Great value for money.
The truth is, there are no such thing as "kit lens". Any lens is an option, a different setup.
A kit lens is a lens that is delivered in the same box as the Camera at a more or less slight discount. So there are kit lenses.
Brilliant!. This answers a question I have been asking myself for the last few weeks. Thank you Gordon & Ben
Hey according to u which rf lens should I opt for Canon EOS r for wedding portraits and photoshoots?
I chose the Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art when I compared it with the Canon EF 24-105 f/4 for my Canon 5D Mk3 a few years ago - worth a look although it's built (and weighs) like a tank.
Yes, the Sigma 24-105/4 Was the choice to go on EF if you wanted an f/4 lens.
I sold all my RF glass, including the heavy 28-70 f/2, and bought used EF L series. Used EF here in Brazil is so cheap right now, it makes no sense paying so much for RF. I also sold Canon's EF to RF adaptor and got the chinese Commlite adaptor with variable ND. It's so easy to change from videos to photo right now and swap lenses without having to unscrew ND filters, step up rings, etc. Also, I found out that the EF 16-35mm 4 IS is great for vlogging, no strange sensor wobbles with the R5, and it's a great combination with the RF 50mm 1.2, that I can also use in crop mode.
I agree about the wobble. Canon really need to address that so you can choose between lens and sensor stabilisation. I am lucky that I have an Eos R without ibis - and I can use my lenses without the background making everyone feel a bit sea sick! I can’t say that I will be investing in any EF lenses though, they seem to hold their value quite well - but one day I would like to think that there will be some bargains to be had!
Very informative, clearly explained, good work guys.
@gordon Could you further describe "low light"? Is everything indoors low light? Is it a normal family meal or a dimmed romantic dinner? Or even a cozy tv evening?
Oh and the f/4 costs €1474 which is still more than the 24-105 f/4.0-7.1 + 50 f/1.8 + 85 f/2.0 combined (€1387) !!
I’m hooked on a Contax Zeiss 24-85, converted to full EOS.
Here's a bit different perspective: The "kit" lens is much lighter and cheaper - that is correct. BUT, eventually, you'll encounter less than optimal light conditions but would still like to take the shot with your "pro camera" rather than resorting to your iPhone. To match the shot you'd be able to take with the F/4 L, you'll need a flash. I'd rather get the heftier lens and be able to take a beautiful shot, than going cheap and being unable to do so. Or have to bother with lugging a flash around.
I am still on APS-C DSLR but moving from a F/3.5-4.5 zoom lens, to a fixed aperture 1.8 lens (although a bit bulkier, heavier and with less range) completely changed my experience. I'm now able to take shots that I could never take before and even at F/1.8 I'm often forced to go to 3000-4000 ISO which is more than I'd normally want to shoot at with the 7d2.
Gordon you read my mind by releasing this video as I was asking the same question
Good timing for you also Bryan.
I think theirs one lens you forgot here the 24-105 stm 3.5-5.6 lens. I use it all the time ideal for video. coupled with the ef 16-35mm f4.
I am happy as I have the F4. Good review Gordon. That was an easy one for you. Ben did all the work.😊😊
I had to hike into the peak district though and find enough Internet to upload it!
@@cameralabs 😊😊
stupendous presentation - I think I'll stick with my Tamron 35 - 150 f 2.8 / 4; I've been getting awesome photos with it. Thanks for the great review it did help me make this decision....
Very nice video--practical real world experiences with each of the lenses considered. I've been using the 24-105 f/4L for most of my walk around work, and have found it to be both versatile and reliable. That said, as someone who used the Olympus OM-D E-M1 for many years prior to obtaining an EOS R, I still don't find the Canon options as convenient, or versatile, as my Olympus kit. In that case, the 12-40mm and 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro lenses matched with the E-M1 body, provided far more range, as a set, while not incurring a weight penalty. In the end, I am forced to concede that for day to day use, in decent to good light, the Olympus was a better solution for me. The Canon comes into its own in indoor, or challenging lighting scenarios, which frankly, I don't encounter as often as I thought I would.
For my Canon kit to offer versatility on par with my Olympus, I would need the 24-105 f/4 L, and another lens to cover the range from 100 to 300mm and at a constant maximum aperture not less than f/5.6. With those limitations in mind, I'd be looking at some serious weight penalties, and some serious cost as well.
I do hope that Olympus, or OM Digital, as the case is now, will continue to invest in that system, and offer some new pro bodies with upgraded video specs. Ultimately, for me, I think future photography will be defined by a smaller sensor form factor unless, by some miracle, Canon opens up its RF ecosystem to third party manufacturers who can offer smaller, lighter, and more versatile lens options.
Just sold all my Olympus gear and going back to canon….(?)! I had the M10 that I broke, that body is very weak! I should have gone with the M1, then I’m sure I would keep be keeping it!
I will still be here watching your videos, watching videos that you want to make 😊
Yes seeing a van project come together sounds interesting and fun.
See you for your next video 👍🙂
Epic opening Gordon! And all in one take! Great video Ben!
Thanks, I did a few takes between showers!
@@cameralabs Well, you seem very clean.
You can get the EF 24-105 that's in a good condition for the same price you can an RF non L that's practically brand new on MPB. EF L wins for me hand down!
It’s like you’re reading my mind. I bought a Gen 1 EF 24-105/4 but it kept throwing a code so I returned it the next day. Two weeks later I got the RF 23-105/4.
Probably a broken flex cable.
@@mirasga yeah, that what I figured. I priced out how much the repair would cost and decided a factory refurbished Canon lens was not much more expensive. Fortunately, they were back in stock.
You have a great allied in Ben. Thanks to both of you
I bought the 24-105 RF F4 yesterday. Am hoping that I get great results with it. Was able to snap a bargain and get it $400 off In Australia. $1699. Enjoyed watching your video on it.
I was just wondering this exact same thing!! So glad you’re ahead of the game! Thanks Gordon!!
I meant, thanks Ben!! (&Gordon:)
Gosh, I had both EF L 24-105mm versions and thought they were awful, soft and never really sharp. Ive seen other reviews not saying the RF is any better. I believe the Sony 24-105mm is a better lens when they are compared. I doubt any of these will cope with a 100mp sensor when it comes
The *RF* version is not any better? But the draw distance between the RF glass and the sensor is a lot closer though, hence the images should be sharper, no?
@@sonicvboom I dont know about the closer thing but the christoher frost review is revealing, hes not negative about the 24-105 RF, but it only seems the same as the EF versions
What a well summarized comparison - thank you!
Great video, thanks for all the time spent to do so many different tests
Very well done. I have got the kit lens with R6, it is light and sharp. Just shot some flowers with it.
It’s great value for money isn’t it. If I was strictly shooting landscapes then I would have bought that one.
The RF L for $1795ca + tax
or
Used EF L for $450ca + $100 adapter
🤔
I was able to save a bit on the RF 24-105 f/4 L by getting it as a kit lens with my R6. But it is a hefty lens indeed.. not so much as many other L lenses, but still. I thus also recognize the arm fatigue when trying to vlog ;-) Actually I got the battery grip shortly after this combination for the purpose of balancing the lens a bit better. And for more battery life and comfortable portrait shooting off-course :-)
The weight of the lens is alright when you carry it by your side, but as soon as you hold it out at arms reach and eye level .....feel the burn!
Can't wait for the newest video of this comparison
I sold my RF 24-105 f4 and picked up the RF 24-240, same image quality and more range.
same here, I prefer more range
Have both but now use the 24-240 nearly all the time. It is the most under-rated lens in the line up
I really don't understand the argument that the EF lenses are not worth buying in 2021 if you have an R-series camera? You can still use your EF glass with an adapter on your R camera! Why wasting money for new RF glass if you're not entirely convinced of its quality (like here)? Simply wait for Canon or third party to give you your required quality lens! ;)
Because there's technical benefits to RF plus no adapter as a potential point of failure. We explain all of it
You forgot to talk about the macro capabilities of the kit zoom which is superior to the L version. I bought it just for that reason, I took many small jewelry product shots, so it is perfect for that.
That's a very good point. Ben was doing this from his perspective, but for others, there are other aspects which are make or break. I also really value very close focusing, not just for macro photos, but for showing products in videos.
@@cameralabs Agree! He was talking from his perspective... I find that lens very useful and I don't care most people consider it mediocre at best 🥲
13:05 problem: what if you already have a EF24-105 coming form a Dslr? Is it worth to upgrade?
Apparently not.
Is it worth to pay the full price for the RF F4 if you can find the EF version for 1/4 of the price? Again, is there really any benefit from the RF version for the difference in price if you don't own a R5 with 45MP?
Debatable...
Hi. I was lucky enough to see the original high resolution images on a 4K monitor before RUclips compressed the images and at 20MP there was very little difference between all three lenses. I couldn’t tell you whether there was any difference if shot on the R5 at 45MP, but there is definitely a benefit in using RF lenses on the motor less bodies - hence me selling my lens to essentially buy the same lens again. It is smaller (no adaptor in the way) it has a control ring on it that opens up the opportunity for controlling ISO for example. And in most instances the RF versions are optically better, just not a massive leap forward with the 24-105 unfortunately.
I've got the EF 24-105 f4 L lens and the RF 24-105 f4-7.1which I bought with my RP. Both are fantastic lenses, but f7.1 really is a disappointment when the light goes down. Wish they stuck with f5.6 as max aperture. I have lots of EF lenses that will work perfectly for now, I might invest in the control ring adapter, I have the canon simple adapter, which I find to be flawless. I really would like the RF lens with a bit more light gathering ability. High ISO does have it's limitations. I am looking for a clean used copy of the old EF 28-105 or EF 28-135 for walking around. I would love Canon to build a RF 24-70 f4 to keep the price down. The RP with a small lens is very easy to take along. They will probably have one available in a few years. I can wait.
Hi John, since you own both EF and RF versions, I've been told the *RF* F4 24-105mm *L* series severely dims when zoomed in, and that it is *not* a constant F4. Is this true?
@@sonicvboom I have the EF 24-105 L version which is a constant f4 aperture (stays f4 at all zoom lengths)
My RF 24-105 is the NON -L version (the variable aperture "kit" zoom) which is f4.0 only at 24mm, as soon as you zoom it darkens the aperture to finally be f7.1 at 105mm.
The RF 24-105L version is a constant aperture (f4.0 at all focal lengths, doesn't change as you zoom) and is much more expensive.
But it is supposed to be a much improved lens. And the "L" version does not get noticably darker as you zoom out. It also costs about $1100. Less if you buy it with a camera body (R5/6 or R/RP).
I bought the cheaper lens because I wanted it to be small and light, with the knowledge that I could use my better EF-L version if I needed to, and didn't mind the larger size and weight.
But both lenses are fantastic.
With regards to dimming in the lens while zooming the L lens does NOT get darker. The cheaper non-L lens does. But the mirror less cameras adjust for this and handle high ISO really well. Don't be afraid to use higher ISO or even better use Auto ISO. Mirror less is so much better at this than DSLR's were.
And if it sounds like I'm contradicting my original post, I am a little bit. I am disappointed that they went to f7.1, when they already make an EF lens from f3.5-5.6. Higher ISO does solve this but f7.1 is 2/3 stop darker than f5.6 and neither makes much Bokeh which everyone loves. But I do love the lens (both actually) but admit the shortcomings.
You will be happy with either lens, just learn their limitations. Good luck 🤞
Thanks for a very interesting and comprehensive review which was a bonus on top of Gordon's original reviews. I should advise I don't shoot video, so I am looking for pure stills performance. I got a couple of R6 bodies and had to decide where to go to as regards RF glass. I decided to cover my range with 3 lenses: RF10-24 (road mapped, but not yet announced), the 24-105L F4 and 100-500L - giving me essentially a full range from 10-500mm in three lenses. I was not intimidated by the weight as I don't hold lenses at arm's length. I shoot with a lot of super-tele zooms: Sigma 150-600c and 60-600s, plus EF 100-400 MkII, (venerable but excellent) EF 28-300L and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM MkII. That said, since I shoot mostly hand-held, I train for it: I do weights several times a week to make sure I have the strength to hold the lenses steady for extended periods.
I got the 100-500 with my bodies but due to COVID chaos (I live in NZ and we're at the end of a long supply chain) my 24-105 was delayed by 5 months! In desperation I got, as a stopgap, the RF24-240, and was actually very impressed at the results: accepting that one has to use the image correction algorithms, but once applied they do a great job. I was sent the 24-105L f/4 unit at last and am happy with the performance. My R5 will be coming in the next month and it will be interesting to consider lens performance against the much higher resolution of that sensor. I already have a couple of the MkI EF version for use with my 5DIII, IV and DsR bodies, and they do an OK job on those bodies.
I am not sure if there is one had been made, but it would be interesting to see a comparison for the constituency that is considering a choice between the 24-105 and 24-240 kit lenses.
I have you covered! Check out my 24-240 review for a comparison!
Great video, very useful and very much appreciated!!
You're welcome!
I'm too lazy to look at prices, but I'm thinking if you buy the "kit lens", you'd have enough money left over, to, IN ADDITION to the kit lens, buy TWO fast primes - the 16/2.8 for very comfortable vlogging, and, the 85/2 for gorgeous portraits, and, STILL have about $150 (U.S.) left over. And, that's IF you paid retail for the 24-105 kit, which you shouldn't, as there are many used/refurbished options.
The EF 24-105 F/4 L severely dims when zoomed. So it's not a constant t/4 lens.
Oh really? I thought it was a constant F4 lens...?
Are you sure you're not referring to the RF 24-105 kit lens...? Or may be you got a bad L batch?
@@sonicvboom I'm referring to the EF 24-105 F/4 not the RF variant. When you use it for video and zoom the image will dim, which means it does not have a constant T-stop.
@@jessejayphotographyWhat about the Canon's RF F2.8 24-70mm L? Or Tamron's EF F2.8 24-70mm G2? Do you reckon those lenses have a constant T3.2-stops?
@@sonicvboom I only own the RF 24-70 f/2.8 It appears to have a constant T stop close to f2.8.
The F4 is a lovely walkabout lens, it covers all the bases and is rarely off my camera.
So the 24-105 f4L is a magic lens. well worth the money. I used it on my Canon R initially. I then sold the R and bought the R8. The R8 with this lens is magic.
Cool. Is it RF or EF?
Great video, useful information!
My gratitude to Ben for buying an EOS R, I thought I was the only fool. I am struggling with the autofocus. I end up blaming the cheaper DSLR for not being able to focus smartly and quickly, as compared to R5 or R6. But if there are any tips and tricks, please enlighten me!
Do you have the latest firmware updates? Canon improved the eye detection and auto focus in v1.4.0
Thank you for the good review, and thanks to Ben in particular. Just one question: Doesn‘t the „Focus/Control“ switch on the kit lens turn AF off or on respectively?
What about the RF 24-70mm f2.8? In comparison
Thank you for the review. I am going to grab the kit lens for travel. I can use my existing EF prime lenses if i need fast glass.
u don't recommend me buying the EF lens for my R10? it gives almost the same results as the RFs ...? even with the adopter it would normally still be perfect for what i need it (photography in pitboxes , pitlane ,... ?) plus doesn't cost me an arm and a leg
Ultimately, get the lens you can afford. If that's the EF one, then go for it.
@@cameralabs thank u ! i bought it last month and am already so impressed by it , now saving up to go for the RFs !
very helpful review-thanks!
Since the F4 24-105mm RF [L-series] does not differ much from the regular 24-105mm RF, I wonder if the F2.8 24-70mm RF L-glass is significally sharper than the F4 RF 24-105mm L from an optical *quality* point of view?
I haven't formally tested the 24-70 2.8 but I did use it for a lot of R5 tests and it delivered some really good results.
@@cameralabsSince you have had the privilege of trying out both lenses... If you *had* to choose one out of the two, which one would you opt for? The F4 24-105 for the lighter weight and an extra 35mm reach at half the cost of the F2.8? Or would you go for 24-70 for the low light/ faster lens capability?
@@sonicvboom if I could afford it and I had an R5, I'd et the 24-70 2.8. If I couldn't afford it, or had a lower res body like the R6, I'd et the 24-105 f4L
Get the canon rf 35mm 1.8 or 85mm rf f2,for low light, both have image stabilization and macro capabilities.
Pretty good review, sir. Pretty good. Liked and subbed.
Good and nice explanation 👏👏👍
Thank you.
What about mounting the FE DSLR version on Canon RP and test eye tracking with continuous auto focus for portraits
Hi Ezra, I can only talk about my experience using the EF 24-105 on my Eos R - and it works ‘fine’ in terms of auto focus. I would say similar to using it on my DSLR (I still have a 5D3). But what was on test here, both lenses on the R6 is significantly better autofocus. It’s the camera more than the lenses though.
You can grab the EF 24-105 F4L used at same prices as a new RF 24-105 kit. I suggest the EF F4L all the way, it is simply better, and at the used price very good value. On top of that, the RF kit lens is one of the hardest lens to resell on the used market. No one is buying it, even at $100. I never recommend anyone to buy any gear that's hard to resell.
I'd go for the Sigma 24-105 mm f4 OS ART
Have never understood that someone chooses this lense, when all 24-70 are much better (and if you need a little more length, just take a few steps forward).
For starters, this lens is cheaper than the F2.8 by almost 2.5x? In addition to the savings, it is lighter and more compact. Plus, it has all the weather/ dust sealing of an L-series...?
Now do it again with the 2.8 version
i buy the kit lens as it was only 150quid more than the body only on my gray import R6 thinking i would make a bit of profit on it ..but i was pleasantly surprised how good it is and thers a few on eBay now and for the price of the L 24-105 you can buy the kit 24-105 a new RF 50mm f1.8 and the now available Yungnuo 85mm F1.8AF thats a little better than the old EF85 F1.8 for the same money and have a much more versatile kit .... when the delayed RF 18-45 non L comes out there not much you cannot do
EDIT i am mistaken about the Yungnuo
will have to keep using the EF 85/100
I’ve owned the EF 24-105mm f4L, the EF 24-105mm f4L II and the RF 24-105mm f4L. My next door neighbour has the RF 24-105mm f4 -7.1 which I’ve used and compared shots to the f4L version on both a EOS R and on a R6 and my results are different the f4L is definitely better in the centre and in the corners even at 24mm so the versions both Gordon and you used must have been worse than mine. As to the EF versions the MKII was almost identical to the RF f4L version.
My RF 24-105/4L is also significantly better than the 24-105 STM at both 24mm and 105mm. Mine is very sharp to the corners throughout the focal range.
I own the 24-105 F4 L mark II and it's not a lens I shoot wide open with it often. For best results, I shoot at F6-8.
I agree
Interesting that the EF 24-105 Version 2 was not in the mix.
Sorry, we had to work with what we had. I am not sure I would have been able to carry any more lenses! There was also the EF kit lens that we didn’t compare.
For the EF mount I've had the 24-105 STM and L lenses on my 6D.
The STM was great for the price, and I think the focusing was faster, and definitely quieter than the L. The IS was also noiseless, and overall the lens was smaller and less weight. At less length, shooting inside lets you get more in when you stand as far back as you can go. Macro is better at 0.4m distance as opposed to 0.7m on the L. The only thing that lets it down is the F4 soon goes up when you zoom in even slightly, and the optics aren't quite as sharp and images don't look as crisp when cropped, plus no weather sealing. That said, I was disappointed by the L for the shortcomings given the much higher price. 0.7m is not very far and by the time you crop, you're probably negating the superior optics because the STM lets you get so much closer if you are taking a pic of a bumblebee on a flower for example.
I have the EF 24-105 L and my Lens works fine and fast and quiet..
I get mine at 350$ only
@@pumkinfamely4963 I got mine cheap too. I kept the L in the end because the bokeh looks so much better. The cheaper lenses are good, but you notice the bad optics when the blur has artefacts in it.
The very best 24-105mm is the RF 24-240mm IS STM.
I find the L so much sharper than the kit lens. My copy of the RF kit lens is pretty poor but I do love the RF L lens.
They're the same sharpness.
I’m using the sigma Art series with the RF adapter on my Eos R. The lens is a behemoth, I could use it for hand to hand combat, but I love it and prefer it over the EF.
How's the AF?
@@HilleCine I used to use the lens on 6D, the auto focus is better on the R, even with the adapter. The only thing I wish I had done was bought the adapter with the control ring, so I could use it as, maybe am aperture ring.
Always stop the lens down to 5.6 or “more” for comparisons like the brick
Would have liked to have seen the corner performance compared. Will check Gordon's vid, I think he had it.
Yes, Gordon has centre and edge comparisons for each of the RF lenses and I believe high resolution files on his website to look at. I was trying to keep the video as short as possible - which is tricky when comparing multiple lenses.
Bens a bloody legend!
I keep telling him that
The RF 24-105 F4 L is a very good lens but unfortunately for a lot of people who bought it, the budget version turned out to be just as good in most circumstances. I do use my camera frequently in lower light situations, so the L version is better suited to my purposes. Having said that, I possess an EF 100 F2.8 L, so there's no reason I couldn't have "made do" with the budget 24-105, other than my being very lazy and not wanting to carrying around extra lenses.
How is it "unfortunate" when the budget version turned out to be just as good? Isn't that a *good* thing?
@@sonicvboom - The people who purchased the L version spent more than those who waited for the budget lens. Good for the budget lens owners, not so good for many of those L purchasers who would have been just as happy with the cheaper lens.
@@hedley.bradstone-unbridledBut the *L* lens has a constant *F4* aperture though...? In addition to the weather/ dust sealing, isn't the *L* series worth the additional cost in the long run?
@@sonicvboom - Yes, I thought so, which is why I bought it without hesitation.
Hi Mr Gordon, have you updated your R5 with the new firmware update? Would love to see you making a video about it 😊
Not yet, I've dpent enough time on it for a while!
Interesting. The photo of the wind turbine for the comparison may not be a good idea because of heat simmer. No lens can perform well in that situation. I am surprised the RF f4 version is not very sharp at the center at 24 mm. Other youtube reviews showed very sharp result at the center at 24 mm.
Also check out my RF 24-105mm STM review for a more detailed quality comparison.
hi i have a canon eos 5d mark III camera and i have the ef 24-105mm zoom lens but when i use it to make videos it doesn't stay focused on the subject as i move the camera around forward back etc..is there something im doing wrong anything in the camera menu i need to adjust?
Quick Timmy review: the affordable RF lens has an absolutely horrendous maximum aperture at most of its focal range, whereas the f4 RF lens is expensive. Get the EF lens used. 😜
nice edit after your previous comment!
@@cameralabs 🤣I'm a fan of yours - but an irreverent one. 😜
R6 can handle 16k ISO.. just use some NR later.. excellent video btw :)
Thanks for the advice last night Ben and for the link to this video. Will hold off the 24-105 and look at the 24-70 RF version i think
2.8 too please
How about the EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 STM?🤔
Well done!
Would you say the EF is totally unusable on an R-serien mount?.. Personally, i can afford a used EF version, but the RF version is quite out of my reach.
Id say adapted Ef lenses work very well on EOS R cameras, although sometimes the AF isn't quite as good as native ones
You get build quality and weather sealing when you buy an L, and a heavier lens because of the extra glass required to get a larger maximum aperture. Weather sealing also means dust proofing - zooming an L lens doesn’t pull dust into it. You don’t necessarily buy an L lens to get better optical quality. Bounce the L and the STM on the ground a few times, roll them in the mud, then do your tests again. See which one still produces good photos.
my 2nd Lens i wish or Tamron 35-150mm 2.8-F4.. i have 50mm 1.8, with this Lens plus 85mm..F2 or Viltrox 85mm RF 1.8 i think its Enough to capture the World.. in daily life.
You should have used the mrk ii version of the ef L lens.
More importantly, Ben - where’s the beach?
Steve - the beach is Caister On Sea (Norfolk).
@@benharveyphotography Thanks I did hear you mention that later in the video. We love the Norfolk coast though usually we stay on the north - Wells, Brancaster etc. Recommended for small children!
hey rf24-105/4 is too expensive for me - so i should choise 24-105 is stm or ef24-105? i made photo inside and outside
Both are good options, but I prefer to shoot native, so I'd go rf stm.
How about auto focus Is EF L series better than Kit RF ?
While every one is entitled to their own opinion, I have to dissagre that the EF version is a bad investment. The EF version has already deprciated and if you buy a mint S/H one it will serve you many more years to come and it will always be worth what you paid for it. The RF L version is massively overpriced and it's only going to drop in value S/H. The Value is with the EF version in my opinion.
I also think that the ability to use a Drop in CPL filter with a EF to RF adapter is astonishingly useful and something that the RF version can't offer.
Not sure if I'm the only one to remember one more model - *24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 STM for DSLRs* . So it makes five of them. But the forgotten one is probably the worst, so it wasn't worth mentioning...
No, that's one of the 2 ef lenses I mentioned at the start. It's actually not bad.
@@cameralabs I thought you said "two DSLR models"... But there are three of them actually. If you meant the f/4 USM and the STM DSLR ones, then sorry that I misunderstood. In this case the forgotten one would be *24-105 f/4 L USM II* . Because the one shown here is the original (version I). And version II is quite more expensive but has some advantages too...
@@PaulKretz yep, I forgot about the mark ii