Canon RF f/2.8 vs. f/4

no. the 24-105L has always been IS. I was an early adopter of the lens and have owned probably 4-5 copies over the year since they came bundled with various cameras I have owned beginning with the original 5d.

my problems with the 24-105L are the distortion at 24mm and the softness at 105mm. for landscape work the 24-70L is just a better lens for me. so the 24-70L II is my "fast" lens and i'm fine with the others zooms being slower since all the trade-offs are beneficial to me (lighter, smaller, cheaper)

IMHO, IS is not what has changed. IS never helped with freezing subject action.
It's the incremental steps in noise handling as ISO settings get pushed higher.

My first 1D bodies I would try to use ISO 100 or 200 whenever I could. Bumping ISo meant loosing detail and adding noise. Wide open was nearly a constant, to keep the shutter speeds up. DOF was sacrificed. The 1D3 raised the bar quite a bit, my "walk out the door" iso setting was 400 now, and I'd go up from there (rarely down, shutter speed was too important.) ISO 3200 (and above) was now quite usable, and not just a hail Mary effort.

And so on. I think the biggest Canon leap was the 5D4,. but incrementally the R5 solidifies the increase. Do i still love fast apertures for shutter speeds and look?, of course, and more is often better. The point is that we can now shoot with smaller aperture, get better DOF for full subject detail, and still have the shutter much higher than back when we needed f/2.8,. and still have less noise as well. Again, IS does not enter into that equation. Image Stabilization is evolving and solving a entirely different problem, that just happens to help us in similar (and sometimes the same) situations.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19164812
IMHO, IS is not what has changed. IS never helped with freezing subject action.
It's the incremental steps in noise handling as ISO settings get pushed higher.

My first 1D bodies I would try to use ISO 100 or 2000 whenever I could. Wide open was nearly a constant, to keep the shutter speeds up. DOF was sacrificed. The 1D3 raised the bar quite a bit, my "walk out the door: iso setting was 400 now, and I'd go up from here (rarely down, shutter speed was too important. ISO 3200 (and above) was now quite useable, and not just a hail Mary effort.

And so on. I think the biggest Canon leap was the 5D4,. but incrementally the R5 solidifies the increase. Do i still love fast apertures for shutter speeds and look, and of course more is often better. The point is that we can now shoot with smaller aperture, get better DOF for full subject detail, and still have the shutter much higher than back when we needed f/2.8,. and still have less noise as well. Again, IS does not enter into that equation. Image Stabilization is evolving and solving a entirely different problem, that just happens to help us in similar (and sometimes the same) situations.

I'm not relying on IS to freeze the subject action. With up to 8 stops of IS using the R5 with RF 24-105 f/4, I'm only interested in the possibility of leaving my tripod at home when traveling.

By the way, I don't know whether you've heard the rumor or not, but an RF mount mirrorless version of the EOS-1D X Mark III is to come out in 2021.

SYS wrote in post #19164831
I'm not relying on IS to freeze the subject action. With up to 8 stops of IS using the R5 with RF 24-105 f/4, I'm only interested in the possibility of leaving my tripod at home when traveling.

By the way, I don't know whether you've heard the rumor or not, but an RF mount mirrorless version of the EOS-1D X Mark III is to come out in 2021.

I'm imagining what is going to make a mirrorless 1Dx is
- A larger body with portrait grip built in,
- possible (likely) using an evolution of the current 1D battery that goes all the way back to 1D3.
- Many more dedicated and customizable buttons. Familiar 1D layout.
- 1DXIII weird AF button
- Built like a tank and acid proof.

Spec wise, Who knows, maybe not much different than what we are seeing now. More room for cooling, so overheating will be gone,. at least 30MP, maybe even the R5 sensor tweaked wit more low/crop resolution options? (now I'm reaching)

I have been using f/4 zoom lenses for many years, supplementing them with faster prime lenses for those times when I need a wider aperture. I mostly use the zoom lenses for landscape work, so I am stopping down for depth of field anyway. The f/4 lenses are lighter and less expensive. In the EF line, I used a 16-35mm f/4 IS L, 24-105mm f/4 IS L and 70-200mm f/4 IS L. For indoor use, I mostly use my 50mm f/1.2 L on my 5D3, although I do also own a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro.

I am transitioning to the RF format slowly, as I currently own an EOS R, have sold my 5D3 and may also be selling my 7D2. I will eventually buy either an R5 or R6. The RF 24-105mm f/4 IS L is a major improvement over the original EF version. The only other RF lens I currently own is the 35mm f/1.4, but my next move will probably be to swap out my 50L for the new RF 50mm f/1.8, as I never shoot my 50L wide open anyway. I am not sure about the RF 70-200mm f/4 IS, though, as it is not compatible with the RF teleconvertors and I do use a 1.4x TC with my EF version when I want to travel lighter and leave the EF 100-400mm L II at home. I am anxiously awaiting an RF version of the EF 16-35mm f/4 IS L, as well.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19162905
A few years ago, I always insisted on the f/2.8 zooms.

After several years working with the 5D4, that has changed somewhat. And of course now we are happily shooting f/6.3 lenses at the long end of zooms, and even f/11 primes! What a world.

So for most of us, the only remaining strong argument for f/2.8 zooms is shooting at f/2.8 for the DOF. For that one could always throw on an affordable faster prime.

Exactly this

sensor performance eliminates the needs for F/2.8 fast zooms....your 24-105 is the best $$ you can spend for a good general purpose lens....My 70-200 F/2.8 collects dust. I use it rarely....only in a church when I need reach

I use my 70-200F4 way more than the F/2.8

Invest in a fast 85 or find someone dumb enough to give away a 135 f/2.o for $500 and you are set

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19164856
- 1DXIII weird AF button

I realize you put a smiley face on there, but you just called my favorite feature of the DX3 weird? That little button is flipping genius.

HKGuns wrote in post #19167406
I realize you put a smiley face on there, but you just called my favorite feature of the DX3 weird? That little button is flipping genius.

I like it too, thus the smiley, But it's weird!

I love f2.8 zooms for portraiture. If I could get a 1.8 zoom that fits FF, I would be very interested. I don't like shooting portraits with a fixed focal length at all, but don't want to lose that creative edge. I shot my 135 1.8 this last senior portrait round, and it was entirely too restrictive in what I wanted to do.

Fast lenses existed for two primary needs (ultimately allow lower ISO and DOF control). As has been discussed, higher ISO models have greatly reduced the one main usefulness of fast lenses, but the other still exists for that creative vibe with narrow DOF, immediate subject isolation from nearby surroundings, etc. If you don't shoot that kind of thing, then fast lenses f2.8 or bigger may just not be necessary at all.

I see so many 135Ls for sale for around 600. What ever r lenses they make I can’t imagine getting better images than you can with the 135. Same with the 50L, on the R it’s sharp at 1.2.

I guess not needing the adapter is a big plus but for me I still use my DSLR bodies.

I’m surprised no one mentioned the 28-70 2.0. I would imagine in time it will be 2.0 vs 2.8 zooms and 1.0 primes

This is a awesome topic . I am on the same boat I have the Canon R. I purchased the RF 24-70 2.8 as my Xmas gift , sold my Canon 5D3 and Sigma 24-70 2.8 to help fund that lens . And was debating on getting the RF 70-200 2.8 just sold my EF 70-200 2.8ii but didn’t really use it because of the weight only for my daughters sports . My buddy suggested getting the RF 70-200 F/4 and after reading these comments on here I preordered the RF 70-200 f/4 no I just have to patiently wait for it to come out . Thanks

Tommydigi wrote in post #19167563
I see so many 135Ls for sale for around 600. What ever r lenses they make I can’t imagine getting better images than you can with the 135. Same with the 50L, on the R it’s sharp at 1.2.

I guess not needing the adapter is a big plus but for me I still use my DSLR bodies.

I’m surprised no one mentioned the 28-70 2.0. I would imagine in time it will be 2.0 vs 2.8 zooms and 1.0 primes

Please keep this quiet. I just snagged a 135 for $535 and really like it. For those of us who aren't going "R" it is a boon in lens purchasing power.

(I heard those EF - RF adapters throw your lens alignment out of whack and ruin the IQ.)

I love my EF 135 it’s nice and light on the R I wouldn’t sell mine great purchase go have a lot of fun with that lens . Congrats

Is the RF 24-105L f4 noticeably better than the RF 24-105 STM version? Anyone shot with both?

Yes, it is.

And the RF 24-105L is actually better than its EF siblings as well. Never liked the EF versions, love the RF.
The RF STM is just a lot less sharp, especially in the corners, and at the WA side. So far, it appears the RF 24-240 is actually better than the RF 24-105 STM.
I kept the 24-240, returned the 24-105 STM, because the 24-240 is great as an allrounder, and is good for video too. Depends a bit on your budget too, I guess. The 24-105 STM is half the price of the 24-240, which again is a little cheaper than the 24-105L.

Ranking them, both in IQ and pricewise (well, more expensive first):
1. RF 24-105 F/4L IS USM
2. RF 24-240 F/4-F/6.3 IS USM
3. RF 24-105 F/4-F/7.1 IS STM

In short, you really get what you pay for, wrt these 3 lenses.

Kind regards, Wim