# Review: Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

> The-Digital-Picture has completed their review of the RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM for the Canon EOS R system.
> Compared to the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II, Bryan found the RF version to be slightly sharper with less linear distortion, but it did show a bit more vignetting.
> The RF 24-105mm f/4L IS appears is a great option for an all-purpose lens for your EOS R, especially if you want the native mount.
> With this lens, you get an ultra-useful focal length range in a lens sized for comfortable long-term use without creativity-killing fatigue. This lens smoothly focuses very fast with consistently excellent accuracy and the image quality is great with 5-stop image stabilization helping to maintain that desired quality. This lens is well-built, including weather sealing, and is ready for professional-duty use, but it does not cost a fortune. Read the full review
> You can buy the...



Continue reading...


----------



## LesC (Oct 30, 2018)

Bit underwhelming - I'd heard this was a really sharp lens. If i go for the EOS R I'll likely continue with my EF24-70 F2.8L MKII until an R version with IS comes out...


----------



## VORON (Oct 30, 2018)

_Compared to the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II, Bryan found the RF version to be slightly sharper ..._
— But it sounds like "As poor as it gets". 

Here is (completely unscientific) comparison of DXO sharpness score vs. release year for genuine Canon EF glass (white) and Sony FE (red). Two 24-105 offerings from Canon are looking quite sorry even in comparison to infamous Sony's 24-240mm ultrazoom. Moreover, the 24-105/4L II is the least sharp of recent Canon lenses.


----------



## tron (Oct 30, 2018)

I agree with both of you.

Allow me to consolidate Canon 24-105 lenses reviews from that site:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

"Quite sharp" is the answer, about the same as or slightly better than the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L II lens.

The image quality comparison between these two lenses shows mostly similarities. The RF lens is slightly sharper with very slightly less linear distortion and the EF lens has less vignetting.



https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

Overall, the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II Lens compared to the version I lens shows the two more similar than different with the new lens showing a slight advantage at 105mm and the two trading small wins in other comparisons.

So as I mentioned in other threads no serious improvement in similarly priced RF lens vs EF L lenses.

In my opinion the only serious improvement is the IS improvement across the models: from 3 stops to 4 stops to 5 stops. This is usefull when shooting at museums, churches, etc and we have no second
fixed/brighter lens with us. Nothing else!


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 30, 2018)

The conventional wisdom seems to be that unless a 24-105 is very expensive, it is what it is. I still don't understand why EF version 2 isn't as sharp as version 1.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 30, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> The conventional wisdom seems to be that unless a 24-105 is very expensive, it is what it is. I still don't understand why EF version 2 isn't as sharp as version 1.



Yeah, gotta be one of the few times I’ve been truly disappointed with Canon. If they brought it up or close to the performance level of the 24-70mm lenses, I would have been ok with a $1500 price tag. 

An RF 24-105 that gave the EF version a run for its money would have been another hard sell for the RF system and Canon - but I guess it is somewhat smaller @ same quality so there’s that...still a tempting combo I have to admit.


----------



## tron (Oct 30, 2018)

Act444 said:


> Yeah, gotta be one of the few times I’ve been truly disappointed with Canon. If they brought it up or close to the performance level of the 24-70mm lenses, I would have been ok with a $1500 price tag.
> 
> An RF 24-105 that gave the EF version a run for its money would have been another hard sell for the RF system and Canon - but I guess it is somewhat smaller @ same quality so there’s that...still a tempting combo I have to admit.


Assuming to TDP site's findings on RF24-15, EF24-105L II and EF24-105 L I their quality is about equal (as we all said) but the 24-105L f/4L IS (version 1) has the same size and weight with RF24-105 so there isn't even that for the RF lens! But the IS of the RF lens is 5 stops vs 4 stops of the 24-105LII and 3 stops of 24-105L I.


----------



## bhf3737 (Oct 30, 2018)

tron said:


> Assuming to TDP site's findings on RF24-105, EF24-105L II and EF24-105 L I their quality is about equal (as we all said) but the 24-105L f/4L IS (version 1) has the same size and weight with RF24-105 so there isn't even that for the RF lens! But the IS of the RF lens is 5 stops vs 4 stops of the 24-105LII and 3 stops of 24-105L I.


Image quality remains - almost - the same between the three lenses, as mentioned. Another difference is that 24-105L( Ver.I) is much noisier (not the picture but the actual lens drive!) than the other two. RF version is very quiet compared to the two EF versions.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 30, 2018)

VORON said:


> _Compared to the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II, Bryan found the RF version to be slightly sharper ..._
> — But it sounds like "As poor as it gets".
> 
> Here is (completely unscientific) comparison of DXO sharpness score vs. release year for genuine Canon EF glass (white) and Sony FE (red). Two 24-105 offerings from Canon are looking quite sorry even in comparison to infamous Sony's 24-240mm ultrazoom. Moreover, the 24-105/4L II is the least sharp of recent Canon lenses.
> View attachment 181304


Even though I'm still  very diffident as to DXO's results and testing methods, fact is that the only really disappointing L lenses are the three 24/105 zooms.
So, once again, I'll have to wait for the next version, me too, I would rather spend more on a higher quality version (1500 $ seems realistic).


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 30, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> Even though I'm still very diffident as to DXO's results and testing methods, fact is that the only really disappointing L lenses are the three 24/105 zooms.



The 28-300 is quite disappointing too!


----------



## Act444 (Oct 30, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> The 28-300 is quite disappointing too!



I had that lens for a short while and found it ok considering the range. IQ wasn’t even the biggest issue I had with it - it was its conspicuousness particularly at events where such a lens is typically useful. Not to mention it is large and heavy, and the IQ it produced wasn’t necessarily a huge step up from a smaller kit (although the 6D I had it attached to extended its usefulness by being so awesome at high ISO, it was even useful for night shots!) BUT - I got so many shots with it that I wouldn’t have otherwise - being able to go straight from wide shot of a band playing to close up of the lead singer in less than a second is something I kind of miss to this day...

Ultimately though I took the path of better IQ.


----------



## Frodo (Oct 30, 2018)

VORON said:


> _Compared to the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II, Bryan found the RF version to be slightly sharper ..._
> — But it sounds like "As poor as it gets".
> 
> Here is (completely unscientific) comparison of DXO sharpness score vs. release year for genuine Canon EF glass (white) and Sony FE (red). Two 24-105 offerings from Canon are looking quite sorry even in comparison to infamous Sony's 24-240mm ultrazoom. Moreover, the 24-105/4L II is the least sharp of recent Canon lenses.
> View attachment 181304


Have you compared lenses using similar MP cameras as higher MP sensors will produce sharper files, even with modest lenses.
I was okay with my EF 24-105/4 IS (MkI) on my 5D, 5DII and 6D, but am very happy with that lens mounted on my 5DsR. It is my go to lens for weddings and events, and for hiking when I accept the additional weight over the M3. For group or single portraiture I prefer my 35 and 85.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 30, 2018)

Here we go again, drawing conclusions about lenses on highly spurious grounds.
First of all, the usual one copy of one vs one of another, with no allowance for copy variation.
Secondly, what you are looking at for the RF vs the EF and the Sony vs Canon are the differences between the whole systems of different mpx sensors and processing of images and lenses, not just the lens. TDP links to a comparison of the 24-105mm RF on the 30mpx AA-filter EOS R vs the EF II on the 50 mpx AA-filterless 5DSR. The DxO mark scores depend on the sensor and camera as you can see by choosing different bodies in the comparisons.

If you really want to compare lenses, wait for Lensrentals to look at 10 copies of each using an optical system that is independent of any sensor or body.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 30, 2018)

I was hoping the RF would be sharper than the EF V1 or V2. Ok. It is not. It is still a, relatively, affordable "kit" lens that gives you a lot of bang for your buck. 

Combine that with several online reviews I've read/watched, which generally seem to like it a lot, this seems like a very good lens to have in the RF arsenal.


----------



## transpo1 (Oct 30, 2018)

24-105 is still the most useful focal length zoom Canon makes. Glad they stuck with this. I've traveled all over the world with my EF Mark I.


----------



## eyeheartny (Oct 30, 2018)

The focus on the RF 24-105 is dead silent. Very impressive. The RF 50mm 1.2 is not as quiet or as quick to focus.


----------



## VORON (Oct 30, 2018)

Frodo said:


> Have you compared lenses using similar MP cameras as higher MP sensors will produce sharper files, even with modest lenses.
> I was okay with my EF 24-105/4 IS (MkI) on my 5D, 5DII and 6D, but am very happy with that lens mounted on my 5DsR. It is my go to lens for weddings and events, and for hiking when I accept the additional weight over the M3. For group or single portraiture I prefer my 35 and 85.


On DXOMark the tests are performed on EOS 5DSR and A7RII respectively. The latter has less MP.

I also owned the EF24-105/4L, used it on 5D and 6D. The quality was OK for zoom lens, but not up to standards of consumer-grade primes, like 50/1.4, 40/2.8 and Tamron 45/1.8. But this lens is 13 years old, and now it's 2018. The modern RF24-105 lens should have been very good, or, alternatively, it shouldn't have been granted the *L* badge.


----------



## AJ (Oct 30, 2018)

Do the RF 24-105 and EF 24-105 mk2 share the same optical design or are they different?


----------



## padam (Oct 30, 2018)

AJ said:


> Do the RF 24-105 and EF 24-105 mk2 share the same optical design or are they different?



They are different and designed with different EF/RF flange distances in mind.


----------



## aggiecutter (Oct 30, 2018)

Tony Northrup says the RF 24 - 105 is the best 24 - 105 on the market:


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 31, 2018)

I own this lens on my EOS R and I can confidently say it's sharper than the EF 24-105 f/4L II IS USM and even the 24-70 f/2.8L II USM...perhaps I'm out of my mind, perhaps I have a good copy...perhaps the internet is looking to trash on the EOS R at any chance it can get. But I've actually worked with this lens and this gear and make my living with photography. This is a truly professional grade lens and controls chromatic aberrations and distortions rather well. I used it for product photography and was delighted by the performance and total absence of longitudinal chromatic aberrations.

Also the claims of this lens being too expensive are asinine. The Sony version is MORE expensive.


----------



## timmy_650 (Oct 31, 2018)

I don't know who said but one of the videos I was watching on the R said the 24-105 was as sharp as the 24-70... I believe the meant the 24-70 F2.8 m2 But I have watched too many videos to find it easily.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 31, 2018)

I guess it all depends on just how picky you are about sharpness. Having rented this lens for a few days, I found the IQ to be as top notch as anything I have used. Sharp, with really good contrast and rich color. As other's have mentioned here and over the years, a lens that covers a longer focal distance and switches from wide to tele is the hardest to make. You really can't compare it to lenses with a different range. This lens could be used by any pro, without question, in my opinion.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 31, 2018)

VORON said:


> _Compared to the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II, Bryan found the RF version to be slightly sharper ..._
> — But it sounds like "As poor as it gets".
> 
> Here is (completely unscientific) comparison of DXO sharpness score vs. release year for genuine Canon EF glass (white) and Sony FE (red). Two 24-105 offerings from Canon are looking quite sorry even in comparison to infamous Sony's 24-240mm ultrazoom. Moreover, the 24-105/4L II is the least sharp of recent Canon lenses.
> View attachment 181304


DXO does not test lenses but they give you the impression that they do. They test lens / camera combinations. Comparing a lens / camera combination across different brands is tricky because they seldom have the same number of pixels or the sensor is of a different generation. Even using a Canon lens on a Sony camera is a problem because cameras are setup for the manufacturers lens, they have a internal table to change settings to match the lens, but it only works for the manufacturers lenses.

The EOS R is different with RF lenses, because the setup data table is in the lens and sent to the camera with instructions for setup to match the lens. That makes it very tough for 3rd party lens makers unless they can reverse engineer it and avoid patents.


----------



## VORON (Oct 31, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> DXO does not test lenses but they give you the impression that they do. They test lens / camera combinations. Comparing a lens / camera combination across different brands is tricky ...


True. Luckily, there's an easy way to test both EF and mirrorless lenses on a single camera.



> The EOS R is different with RF lenses, because the setup data table is in the lens and sent to the camera with instructions for setup to match the lens. That makes it very tough for 3rd party lens makers unless they can reverse engineer it and avoid patents.


They can either ignore in-camera corrections, or make an agreement with original manufacturer. The very latest Sigma lenses support in-camera corrections on Canon bodies.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 31, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> DXO does not test lenses but they give you the impression that they do. They test lens / camera combinations. [..]



I seem to remember that the DXO sharpness score is also impacted by the minimum aperture, so if you have 2 *identical* lenses, but one will go down to f/22 and the other to f/32 DXO will score the f/22 one higher. 
Both values are way beyond the diffraction limit already for the sensors they are tested on, but we're talking about DXO here.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 31, 2018)

koenkooi said:


> I seem to remember that the DXO sharpness score is also impacted by the minimum aperture, so if you have 2 *identical* lenses, but one will go down to f/22 and the other to f/32 DXO will score the f/22 one higher.
> Both values are way beyond the diffraction limit already for the sensors they are tested on, but we're talking about DXO here.


There is so much smoke and mirrors behind DxOmark tests. One of their tricks is to present lens measurements where you can choose the body, like a 5DIV or 7DII. But, they don't actually compare directly but use a formula they have concocted based other combinations. They also present an overall score based on the best focal length of a lens so it might be mid-range for a telephoto that is garbage fully extended.


----------



## photennek (Oct 31, 2018)

timmy_650 said:


> I don't know who said but one of the videos I was watching on the R said the 24-105 was as sharp as the 24-70... I believe the meant the 24-70 F2.8 m2 But I have watched too many videos to find it easily.



I recall that at least Tony said it already a while ago in another of his videos, before the video that came out yesterday from him.

So, some are reporting it is very sharp, while others that it is not so much of an improvement over its EF-counterpart (v2). Do we have a big variation between copies or what is the issue? Do we have anyone here with hands on experience saying it is not much of an improvement, and that the EF-24-70 (v2) is still sharper (Tony say's they don't have meaningful difference anymore, if I recall right...)

I am tempted because of the reach and apparently good IS, but the F/4 and image quality still make me think twice. If the IQ would turn out like Tony claims, I might slide over and get one. But maybe I end up waiting for the RF 24-70 f/2.8 IS and see then again.

Another thing about the EF vs RF -lenses on the R, I find that without the battery grip on the R it is not so comfortable to hold adapted "longish / heavyish" lenses like even the EF 24-70 for very long. They feel quite front heavy and the R body without the grip does not give my hands a strong handle. With the grip the whole problem kind of goes away, for me anyway. Now I have the battery grip, but this is one reason I'm curious about these RF options, hoping they wouldn't feel so front heavy. I'm looking for the RF 35mm f/1.8...


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 31, 2018)

Why did I get the impression that with the RF mount lenses we'd have less copy variation and less vignetting than in the EF counterparts? I guess I read what I want to believe sometimes.

If there really are significant copy variations, then at least that's better than the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II's consistently soft and CA prone reputation. (I tried 3 or 4 copies of the latest EF version from three sources and didn't keep any. Worst L lens I ever tried.)

Truly disappointing if this review holds true for the majority of the RF copies. I don't see any reason to risk getting this as a kit. If the body is fine but the lens is soft, what a pain in the neck.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 31, 2018)

There is copy variation even with the EF-M lenses - case in point, I seem to have wound up with a sub-par copy of the 15-45 as other posters seem to be singing its praise while I’ve stopped using mine and put it on the list of stuff to be traded in - don’t see how the RF lenses would be much different (they are more complex after all too).

I only can speak for the copy of the 24-105 on my local store’s display model R - I have nothing to compare it to, so I can’t really say...compared to the EF version (I) I don’t really see a difference honestly. In fact I initially thought my EF version was a bit better but that’s before I realized that it’s probably just the softer R output vs. the 5D4.

Bottom line - I think different people have different thresholds of what “sharp” means. I’m probably near the extreme end in this case in that I like very high acutance and lots of detail. The 5DSR/85 1.4 combo at f2.8 or f4 - or the 5DSR/100 Macro or 35 1.4 II combo - is what I consider (wow) sharp. Heck, the EF 24-105 on my old 5D3 I considered acceptably sharp, particularly near 50mm. On the 5D4 I find it meh, but still good enough for walkaround use, provided the presence of good, bright light (otherwise detail is nonexistent). YMMV...


----------



## twoheadedboy (Oct 31, 2018)

I have the STM. Having the R-native lens intrigues me, and this seems like a "best of both worlds" (STM and L II) in that it has silent focus and size of the STM and the constant f/4 aperture of the L II, but is it really an upgrade optically over the STM? I'm not seeing any evidence that it is, or is significantly.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 31, 2018)

We've been through this before. Had Canon been able to make a 24-105 that is significantly sharper and sell it for $1,500 they would have. The fact that they haven't and that no other manufacturer has been able to make a significantly sharper lens should tell you something. My own opinion is that to produce a lens in this range that is visibly sharper would push the cost well above $2,000. At that price point, the market for such a lens quickly evaporates. 

I'm a consistent user of the EF-L 24-105, first V1 and now V2, and have no complaints in everyday real world usage. For me, the versatility of this focal length is worth a tiny compromise in sharpness. If you obsess over sharpness, you need to look at other focal lengths.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 31, 2018)

Lensrentals did a good blog comparing the Sony with the others https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/02/mtf-tests-of-the-sony-fe-24-105mm-f4-oss/
Roger summarises: "...Sony has made a damn good 24-105mm f/4 lens. Damn good being a relative term, of course, because it’s a 24-105mm lens and I have come to hate them all so I can’t be too nice about it. But it’s clearly better than the Canon 24-105mm f/4 II IS, and at least as good as the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 Art or Nikon 24-120mm VR. Fanboys, may start their hair-splitting engines now about which one is two angstroms better than the other."


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 31, 2018)

aggiecutter said:


> Tony Northrup says the RF 24 - 105 is the best 24 - 105 on the market:


For the system yes EOS R and those other EOS R certainly look like that they rock although these lenses are only supportable on EOS R bodies, therefore people who own couple of Canon DSLR's still like 5D MK 4, !D X will probably still invest in the EF brand for the time being and use these on the EOS R when they buy the bodies - excellent adaptor. Still think people will buy the EOS R lenses that they currently don't have in EF or update very earlier lenses, e.g., Canon EF 24-105 F4 MK 1 until more pro versions of the EOS R appears, e.g., Canon EOS R1X, etc.

This is the same quandary / dilemma on the Nikon side of the fence although Canon is more involved in Mirrorless than Nikon who still don't have an entry level entrance to mirrorless, e.g., APS mirrorless M50, etc. Therefore the cheapest entry point for Nikon's is £2300 compared to £300 for Canon Aps mirrorless investing in some EFm/ EFs lenses and majority of their lenses probably would be good EF lenses and where over time they can upgrade to the EOS R FF Mirrorless.

Have to say that the Canon EOS R and its equivalent lenses certainly seem very strong to me


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 31, 2018)

Just in case anyone is interested, the EF 24-105 f/4L II IS USM lens is an absolutely tremendous piece of glass. It is optically better than the version one in many ways - distortion, chromatic aberrations, flare performance. But if all you care about is overall sharpness, then you're not going to see much improvement over the Mark I.

I have used this lens for a large portion of my editorial work this year and began to travel with the 24-105 exclusively over the 24-70 last August simply because the zoom range and IS are more usable. I reserve the 24-70 for weddings and events now. It's sharp and performs very well. I wish people would stop being so silly about the lens because it's extremely underrated.

All photos taken with the EF 24-105 f/4L II IS USM and 5D Mark IV.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 1, 2018)

LSXPhotog said:


> I own this lens on my EOS R and I can confidently say it's sharper than the EF 24-105 f/4L II IS USM and even the 24-70 f/2.8L II USM...perhaps I'm out of my mind, perhaps I have a good copy...perhaps the internet is looking to trash on the EOS R at any chance it can get. But I've actually worked with this lens and this gear and make my living with photography. This is a truly professional grade lens and controls chromatic aberrations and distortions rather well. I used it for product photography and was delighted by the performance and total absence of longitudinal chromatic aberrations.
> 
> Also the claims of this lens being too expensive are asinine. The Sony version is MORE expensive.



What I see on TDP is that the RF lens is maybe a little bit weaker in the center but it's much better in the corners. One has to "interpolate" between the 1Ds mark iii and 5DsR files for the EF versions to compare it to the RF version. And there a lot of sublime properties which make a vivid contrasty faithful image than just the "measurable" sharpness.

Seeing forward to the test of the EF-M 32, the first lens I bought without seeing a good review or sample photos - I would like to see some scientific proof why I am so happy with it (I can live without it but as scientist I like to complement subjective experiences with a more formal analysis


----------



## tron (Nov 1, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> What I see on TDP is that the RF lens is maybe a little bit weaker in the center but it's much better in the corners. One has to "interpolate" between the 1Ds mark iii and 5DsR files for the EF versions to compare it to the RF version. And there a lot of sublime properties which make a vivid contrasty faithful image than just the "measurable" sharpness.
> 
> Seeing forward to the test of the EF-M 32, the first lens I bought without seeing a good review or sample photos - I would like to see some scientific proof why I am so happy with it (I can live without it but as scientist I like to complement subjective experiences with a more formal analysis


I am happy with my EF24-105 f/4L IS (first version) on my 5DMkIV. Use of our 24-105 lenses with 30 mpixel cameras maybe the reason for both of us.


----------



## Quirkz (Nov 2, 2018)

LSXPhotog said:


> All photos taken with the EF 24-105 f/4L II IS USM and 5D Mark IV.



I think those photos make your point quite convincingly. Thanks for the real world examples. It’s the photographer, not the camera or lens, as always.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 2, 2018)

tron said:


> I am happy with my EF24-105 f/4L IS (first version) on my 5DMkIV. Use of our 24-105 lenses with 30 mpixel cameras maybe the reason for both of us.



I still use mine for outdoor events from time to time on the 5D4. I really liked it on the 5D3 when I had it, it got good results even indoors.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 3, 2018)

LSXPhotog said:


> Just in case anyone is interested, the EF 24-105 f/4L II IS USM lens is an absolutely tremendous piece of glass. It is optically better than the version one in many ways - distortion, chromatic aberrations, flare performance. But if all you care about is overall sharpness, then you're not going to see much improvement over the Mark I.
> 
> I have used this lens for a large portion of my editorial work this year and began to travel with the 24-105 exclusively over the 24-70 last August simply because the zoom range and IS are more usable. I reserve the 24-70 for weddings and events now. It's sharp and performs very well. I wish people would stop being so silly about the lens because it's extremely underrated.
> 
> All photos taken with the EF 24-105 f/4L II IS USM and 5D Mark IV.


Very nice! I think I'd have to be over the top picky to find fault. Your photos tell a much better story than photos of pine needles.  Proving once again that the photographer is most important. The only thing more to wish for (just my taste) would be for the lens to be internally focusing like the 70-200. It would probably make the lens heavier and bigger, but I would be okay with that. Your shots have sold me. I'm sure the R version is just as good. Sometimes one must wonder if people commenting about lenses have ever actually used them. I think the answer is they have not, in many cases. A lot of regurgitation goes on.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 9, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Very nice! I think I'd have to be over the top picky to find fault. Your photos tell a much better story than photos of pine needles.  Proving once again that the photographer is most important. The only thing more to wish for (just my taste) would be for the lens to be internally focusing like the 70-200. It would probably make the lens heavier and bigger, but I would be okay with that. Your shots have sold me. I'm sure the R version is just as good. Sometimes one must wonder if people commenting about lenses have ever actually used them. I think the answer is they have not, in many cases. A lot of regurgitation goes on.



Do you mean internally zooming? It already internally focuses. I think the main draw of this lens is that it offers a very wide zoom range and can be compressed down at 24mm for traveling.

So far, the new RF 24-105 is better than the EF versions in every way...so I'm delighted. I plan to use this lens for all my travel photography around the world, as well as much of my professional work like races and editorial images like the car photos I shared.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 13, 2018)

LSXPhotog said:


> Do you mean internally zooming? It already internally focuses. I think the main draw of this lens is that it offers a very wide zoom range and can be compressed down at 24mm for traveling.
> 
> So far, the new RF 24-105 is better than the EF versions in every way...so I'm delighted. I plan to use this lens for all my travel photography around the world, as well as much of my professional work like races and editorial images like the car photos I shared.


Yes, I meant internally zooming.  I am becoming a fashion photographer and can see that this lens could be very useful for travel. Thanks again for a great presentation of the quality.


----------



## ozturert (Jun 7, 2019)

Here is what I think about this lens: The best 24-105mm lens ever. Definitely. I used Canon EF 24-105mm f4 L IS USM, Sigma 24-105mm f4 OS, Nikon 24-120mm f4 VR and Sony 24-105mm f4G OSS. This RF lens is the best overall. Optically it is very balanced and I can use it at f4 without even thinking on EOS R. Only above 90-95mm at f4 you'll see some decrease in corners and vignetting at 24mm at f4, and that's all. CA is very low, it is always sharp in the middle section and it is really good from 24mm to 90mm at f4 from corner to corner, it is short, handles perfectly well and the control ring is a God-given  I wish it had close-focus like EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM (which I'll sell tomorrow) but you can't have it all I guess 
Canon has a winner. Definitely. Now it's time to give new buyers a reasonably priced 24-105mm f3.5-5.6 IS.
Edit: I see a lot of vignetting between 24 and 35mm at f4 in RAW (uncorrected). Compared to my Sony 24-70mm f2.8GM this is very visible (GM lens is probably the best 24-70mm anyway and it is more than 2 times more expensive than Canon). After I edit RAW file and with some sharpening, you will still have good corners. And remember this is at f4.


----------

