# RF 24-105L vs RF 24-70L



## jeanluc (Jun 25, 2020)

Anybody own both of these lenses? In the process of converting from EF to RF.

I have had the old 24-105L F4, and currently have the EF 24-70L II.

Just trying to decide between the 2 for a mid range zoom.

I mainly shoot landscapes, so the RF 15-35 was the first one to get. I don't shoot in the 35-70 focal lengths much, and if I do its usually not wide open. 

I've read the reviews, including the ones on The Digital Picture which are great. It seems like the differences between these are not that significant. Having said that, there is a reason one costs twice as much. From a cost perspective, it seems appealing to buy the 24-105 when it comes out as a kit with R5, and spend the difference on the RF 70-200L.

I am wondering if the differences in IQ would be much more apparent on a 45 MP sensor.

Cost is important but if I end up ditching the 24-105 for the 24-70 later then I would rather just get the 24-70 and be done.

Any input appreciated.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 25, 2020)

I've rented both the RF ones and the EF24-70II, the RF24-70 is bigger and heavier. Apart from DoF it's hard to tell the RF ones apart on an RP. I also can't decide between the two, but with the predicted R5 price, I can fit the R5 + RF100-500 in my budget, but not another €3000-ish lens. So if I still want a zoom in that range, I'll pick the 24-105.

But since you already have the EF version of the 24-70, I'd keep that and go with the RF24-105. The RF24-105 is a lot better than the EF24-105 version 1 I have. The difference between the EF and RF 24-70 wasn't noticeable in the shots I took with them, but I only had them for a week and used them for family snapshots.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 25, 2020)

Unless you have a specific reason, keep using the EF lenses and purchase lenses that you need in the RF line. More will be coming out, so save for them. You can add a EF-RF adapter on each of your EF lenses if it helps. Canon sells refurbs for a reasonable price, or there are 3rd party ones.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 25, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Unless you have a specific reason, keep using the EF lenses and purchase lenses that you need in the RF line. More will be coming out, so save for them. You can add a EF-RF adapter on each of your EF lenses if it helps. Canon sells refurbs for a reasonable price, or there are 3rd party ones.



+1. Keep the EF 24-70 II for now, and use your money on lenses that you'd use more. I like it better than either EF or RF 24-105. The EF lenses have lost most of their initial price premiums while the RF lenses have not. The question you need to answer is whether the EF 24-70 II is worth more than the RF 24-105. Right now, the answer is yes, and I'm guessing it'll still be true in the future because the RF 24-105 is a kit lens. So even though the 24-70 II has been out for a long time and there are many copies in the wild, there will usually be people selling RF 24-105s to upgrade to a f/2.8 24-70. And with the RF 24-70 as expensive as it is, I'm guessing the EF 24-70 II will remain between the RF 24-70 and the EF/RF 24-105s for a few more years, so it's not necessary to sell the EF 24-70 II now for resale value.

My experience with the 24-70s and 24-105s largely mirrors TDPs reviews. When the EF 24-70 II came out, there wasn't a better general purpose zoom. It was best at the wide end, had higher resolution than the EF primes at 50mm (at the time) and was softer at 70mm. The RF 24-70 is similar to the EF 24-70 II, but it has IS. I use it for portrait/event situations so I value the extra stop over the 70-105mm range of the f/4.

If you have your heart committed to fully switching to RF, just make sure you get a fair value for trading in the EF 24-70 II.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 25, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Unless you have a specific reason, keep using the EF lenses and purchase lenses that you need in the RF line. More will be coming out, so save for them. You can add a EF-RF adapter on each of your EF lenses if it helps. Canon sells refurbs for a reasonable price, or there are 3rd party ones.


Unless I am missing something, this seems to be the easy answer. Why sell your EF 24-70? Keep it, and get RF lenses that aren't duplicating what you already have.


----------



## hobbodanno (Jul 19, 2020)

Hi all, newb here. I hope it's ok that I post in this thread, rather than start a new one.

I have an R without any RF lenses yet. I've rented the EF 24-70 f/4L for it, which is a sense I really like. I've been holding out on any RF lens purchase with the hopes that Canon would make a RF 24-70 f/4L soon. So, my question is this: how good is the RF 24-105 f4L? I've read quite a few reviews that didn't speak very highly of the EF 24-105 f/4L (and that the 24-70 f4 was much better), and I've also read some early reviews that indicated the RF 24-105 f4L wasn't a whole lot better than the EF version. That being said, some of the commenters above seem to think the RF version is pretty good, and the DP review seemed pretty positive.

Most of my photography has been Landscape photography, and I quite like the 24-70 range, and I like the f/4 for its size. 

So, should I go ahead and pull the trigger on a RF 24-105 f/4L, or continue waiting on a RF 24-70 f/4, or maybe even just buy an EF 24-70 f/4L?

Thanks!
Daniel


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 21, 2020)

hobbodanno said:


> Hi all, newb here. I hope it's ok that I post in this thread, rather than start a new one.
> 
> I have an R without any RF lenses yet. I've rented the EF 24-70 f/4L for it, which is a sense I really like. I've been holding out on any RF lens purchase with the hopes that Canon would make a RF 24-70 f/4L soon. So, my question is this: how good is the RF 24-105 f4L? I've read quite a few reviews that didn't speak very highly of the EF 24-105 f/4L (and that the 24-70 f4 was much better), and I've also read some early reviews that indicated the RF 24-105 f4L wasn't a whole lot better than the EF version. That being said, some of the commenters above seem to think the RF version is pretty good, and the DP review seemed pretty positive.
> 
> ...




Take a look at the TDP comparison. The RF 24-105 f/4 IS and EF 24-70 f/4 IS are on 2 different cameras, but it looks like the EF 24-70 f/4 really only has an advantage at 24mm in the center. I'd say the RF wins slightly at 35mm and wins overall at 50 and 70mm. So I would suggest going with the RF.









Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## TominNJ (Jul 21, 2020)

Since you shoot landscapes you might want to look at the lenses that Canon recommends for depth compositing (focus stacking). In the latest version of the DPP manual the following lenses are recommended for what I assume are focus breathing reasons:

RF35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM, RF50mm F1.2 L USM, RF28- 70mm F2 L USM, RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM
EF16-35mm f/4L IS USM, EF24-70mm f/4L IS USM, EF100mm f/2.8L MACRO IS USM, EF180mm f/3.5L MACRO USM

i Think these recommendations would hold true whether you use DPP, Photoshop or any other focus stacking software to combine images. I also think that focus bracketing will go a lot easier and be more successful when these lenses are used.

i think this list might be updated in the R5, R6 and new DPP manuals that will drop shortly but maybe not.


----------



## padam (Jul 21, 2020)

TominNJ said:


> Since you shoot landscapes you might want to look at the lenses that Canon recommends for depth compositing (focus stacking). In the latest version of the DPP manual the following lenses are recommended for what I assume are focus breathing reasons:


The R has no focus bracketing, only the RP does.

Back to Daniel's original question, I think the RF 24-105 F4 and the EF 24-70 F4 are roughly equally as sharp the latter with a little less distortion since it has a narrower range. So. if reach is not needed, the latter is a good purchase for the money, but the RF needs no adapter, so it is overall not any bigger or heavier and a good copy will perform very well everywhere except 105mm where it is a little softer.
In short, both are good choices.


----------



## TominNJ (Jul 21, 2020)

padam said:


> The R has no focus bracketing, only the RP does.
> 
> Back to Daniel's original question, I think the RF 24-105 F4 and the EF 24-70 F4 are roughly equally as sharp the latter with a little less distortion since it has a narrower range. So. if reach is not needed, the latter is a good purchase for the money, but the RF needs no adapter, so it is overall not any bigger or heavier and a good copy will perform very well everywhere except 105mm where it is a little softer.
> In short, both are good choices.



‘The new R5 and R6 do have focus bracketing. You don’t need a focus bracketing camera to do focus stacking. All you need to do is put the camera on a tripod and take a series of pictures refocusing after each. A composite landscape image can then be made with great depth of field and without loss of resolution from diffraction. I believe that can be done with less chance of unwanted artifacts if the recommended lenses are used.

I also believe it would be wise to future proof and buy lenses that will focus bracket when the user buys his next camera.


----------



## hobbodanno (Jul 22, 2020)

Thanks all for the feedback. I actually went ahead and purchased the RF 24-105 f/4L last night. Based on the above comments, I think I'll be pretty happy with the purchase. My skill level probably isn't on par with the camera and lens anyway.  Now I just hope Canon releases an f/4 version of the 15-35 or similar, or a fast 14 to 16mm prime.

As far as focus bracketing goes, I honestly haven't experimented with it. I know my R doesn't have it, and I've been crossing my fingers hoping a firmware update comes along to address that. In the meantime, I'll learn how to do the composite landscapes. 

Thanks again!
Daniel


----------



## LesC (Jul 23, 2020)

I think you'll be happy with the RF24-105. I have both the RF24-105 & RF24-70 & previously had the EF24-70 F2.8 MKII. I find it difficult to tell the difference IQ-wise between the two & the RF24-70 is bigger/heavier but better built & is F2.8. Whether that's worth the extra money is debatable. I'd say the RF24-105 is at least a match for the EF24-70 F2.8L MKII for IQ. The RF15-35 F2.8L is a lovely lens though & better than all three imho.


----------



## hobbodanno (Jul 24, 2020)

LesC said:


> I think you'll be happy with the RF24-105. I have both the RF24-105 & RF24-70 & previously had the EF24-70 F2.8 MKII. I find it difficult to tell the difference IQ-wise between the two & the RF24-70 is bigger/heavier but better built & is F2.8. Whether that's worth the extra money is debatable. I'd say the RF24-105 is at least a match for the EF24-70 F2.8L MKII for IQ. The RF15-35 F2.8L is a lovely lens though & better than all three imho.



Thanks Les. The RF 15-35 2.8L is definitely a lens I'd love to have, but I'm not sure I can justify the price. I've heard a lot of good things about it though, and I'm definitely going to keep an eye on its prices.


----------



## Thrashard (Aug 6, 2020)

24-105L takes horrible indoor photos. It came with my 5D Mark III and was lucky to sell it for normal face value and got the 24-70 II. Much better improvement and major upgrade to photos.


----------



## hobbodanno (Aug 6, 2020)

Thrashard said:


> 24-105L takes horrible indoor photos. It came with my 5D Mark III and was lucky to sell it for normal face value and got the 24-70 II. Much better improvement and major upgrade to photos.



I had heard similar things about the EF 24-105L, and that the EF 24-70 was significantly better. I had some concerns that the RF 24-105L would suffer from some of the same issues as the EF version, but the reviews seem to point towards the RF 24-105L as being a great lens. It may not be as good as the RF 24-70 2.8, but if it’s as good as the EF 24-70 f4, than I’m happy.


----------



## Frodo (Aug 7, 2020)

Thrashard said:


> 24-105L takes horrible indoor photos. It came with my 5D Mark III and was lucky to sell it for normal face value and got the 24-70 II. Much better improvement and major upgrade to photos.


The EF 24-105 mk i is a lens some love to hate. Many, if not most, objective comparisons with the mk ii and 24-70/4 show limited differences. The EF 24-70/2.8ii is recognised as a superior lens. For your indoor photography, it could be thst the f/4 pushes the 5Diii to ISO 3200 compared to 1600 at f/2.8, making a big difference to IQ.
I'm contemplating swapping my EF 24-105/4 mki for the RF 24-105/4 so am interested in these comments. The EF has given me a fantastic run since the original 5D.


----------



## Act444 (Aug 8, 2020)

I also use the original EF 24-105mm lens - I actually liked it on my 5D3, even indoors (in good light)...however, that's not the case on the 5D4. Images got a lot softer with that combo. I don't even put it on the 5DSR, no use. The 24-70 is a different story. Great lens, just wish it had IS...the lack of it really limits its versatility.

I tried to go to DPReview and download some R5 images taken with the RF version of the 24-105 to compare, but DPP won't open them for some reason...would love to compare at some point.


----------



## Frodo (Aug 8, 2020)

Act444 said:


> I also use the original EF 24-105mm lens - I actually liked it on my 5D3, even indoors (in good light)...however, that's not the case on the 5D4. Images got a lot softer with that combo. I don't even put it on the 5DSR, no use. .


At a pixel level, the lens on my 5DsR may appear softer, overall I get sharper images on that camera. Certainly, the 24-105 on my 5DsR is sharper than my 35/2 IS on my 20 MP 6D when upscaled to same image size. I think manufacturing variation explains differences and I have a good one.


----------

