Anyone Using RF 24-105mm f4L?

Anyone here using (or have used) the RF 24-105mm f4L? If so, what are your thoughts on it?

snegron wrote in post #19510036
Anyone here using (or have used) the RF 24-105mm f4L? If so, what are your thoughts on it?

There's the lens sample images that speak for themselves: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1501564

This is the only lens I take when I travel.

I got one with the EOS R when I moved to RF, just to experience native RF lenses in addition to my old EF-lenses with Canon adapters.

I did use the EF equivalents in the past, but was never enamored with them, as I found that IQ was soso at the long end, and in darker circumstances they never really performed all that great. So, although I was a little wary, I got one with the new body for a great deal, so thought I'd try it out.

The lens actually surprised me. It was so much better than the EF-equivalents, and it performed great under all conditions. If I need a high quality, more or less portable zoom lens with my camera, it is the number one lens I grab. It also is very secure wrt AF-performance, which was definitely a bit of a problem in darker and less contrasty conditions with the EF-equivalents.

I actually used it for reportage shoots, outdoors and indoors, in a great variety of lighting conditions, and I am very happy with it.
My standard combo I carry around with me these days for shoots are the RF 24-105L, the RF 85L, the RF 50L, RF 35, and Samyang 10 F/3.5 XT Premium, the latter being a lens with EF-mount., which I use adapted.
Anyway, AFAIAC, the Rf 24-105 F/4L comes highly recommended.

Kind regards, Wim

Similar to wimg, I got the RF 24-105L as part of a kit with the EOS R for a really good price. I also owned the EF 24-105L at that time (paired with a 5D3). The RF lens was a significant improvement in both image quality and build quality -- my EF version had developed an issue with the image stabilization, so I had to turn it off.

I think I might have gotten a dud. I ordered one last week and it turned out to be soft up to f8. Also, it seems to hunt for focus as well. Low light performance was disappointing. Also, turns out that you can't override the AF with the focus ring like you can on every other L lens.

I really wanted to like this lens, but I'm sending it back. Not sure if I should get a replacement or go with another lens choice.

snegron wrote in post #19510652
I think I might have gotten a dud. I ordered one last week and it turned out to be soft up to f8. Also, it seems to hunt for focus as well. Low light performance was disappointing. Also, turns out that you can't override the AF with the focus ring like you can on every other L lens.

I really wanted to like this lens, but I'm sending it back. Not sure if I should get a replacement or go with another lens choice.

I honestly think you got a dud. I never experienced hunting, and overriding AF with the focus ring should certainly work, too.

I shot in the dark with just some light from a few fire dancers, as in, acrobatics with swinging sticks burning at both ends etc., in the pitch dark. No problem whatsoever achieving focus, the only hassle was getting a decent shutter speed ....

Personally, I would return it and get another one, even to the point that if you got it from a store rather than via mail etc., I would visit said store, and exchange it for one that works well, try a few lenses.

An alternative could be the RF 24-240 F/4-F/6.3, but that is not an F/4 lens over its entire range, and neither is it L-class, but quite good regardless, and I do like it for carrying around if I can only bring a single lens, for holidays etc. It is only 1 cm or so longer than the RF 24-105L, the same diameter I think, and only 50 grams heavier (750 vs 700).

Another alternative would be the RF 24-70 F/2.8L, but I think its range is too short, and it is quite a bit more expensive.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #19511102
I honestly think you got a dud. I never experienced hunting, and overriding AF with the focus ring should certainly work, too.

I shot in the dark with just some light from a few fire dancers, as in, acrobatics with swinging sticks burning at both ends etc., in the pitch dark. No problem whatsoever achieving focus, the only hassle was getting a decent shutter speed ....

Personally, I would return it and get another one, even to the point that if you got it from a store rather than via mail etc., I would visit said store, and exchange it for one that works well, try a few lenses.

An alternative could be the RF 24-240 F/4-F/6.3, but that is not an F/4 lens over its entire range, and neither is it L-class, but quite good regardless, and I do like it for carrying around if I can only bring a single lens, for holidays etc. It is only 1 cm or so longer than the RF 24-105L, the same diameter I think, and only 50 grams heavier (750 vs 700).

Another alternative would be the RF 24-70 F/2.8L, but I think its range is too short, and it is quite a bit more expensive.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

I'm a little concerned about the possibility of getting another dud.

I'm now searching for an alternative to this lens. I'm thinking of maybe the RF 14-35mm f4.0L. If I could find small, sharp primes, I would probably go that route as well. I currently have the RF 16mm f2.8 and RF 50mm f1.8. My other lenses are EF (28mm f1.8 USM, 85mm f1.8 USM, 70-200mmf2.8L, 300mm f4.0L). I use them with an EF to RF adapter. I would be happy if I could find a decent, fast, sharp, well-built 35mm lens. I'm a bit apprehensive about the RF 35mm f1.8 because I have read a few reviews criticizing it's build quality and non-stellar sharpness.

Fwiw, I sold my old EF 35mm f2.0 IS some time ago. I don't think I'd buy another one.

snegron wrote in post #19511211
I'm a little concerned about the possibility of getting another dud.

I'm now searching for an alternative to this lens. I'm thinking of maybe the RF 14-35mm f4.0L. If I could find small, sharp primes, I would probably go that route as well. I currently have the RF 16mm f2.8 and RF 50mm f1.8. My other lenses are EF (28mm f1.8 USM, 85mm f1.8 USM, 70-200mmf2.8L, 300mm f4.0L). I use them with an EF to RF adapter. I would be happy if I could find a decent, fast, sharp, well-built 35mm lens. I'm a bit apprehensive about the RF 35mm f1.8 because I have read a few reviews criticizing it's build quality and non-stellar sharpness.

Fwiw, I sold my old EF 35mm f2.0 IS some time ago. I don't think I'd buy another one.

Actually, I don't know where you read that the RF 35 F/1.8 Macro is not a good lens. Its optical quality is almost on a par with the 35L, so it definitely is a good lens. It is the lens that is fitted to my camera by default, because it is small, light, and very good, over the entire frame. The funny thing is that I could never handle 35 mm lenses, I tried well over ten different ones, and often more than one copy of the same one over the years, but I just never 'saw' it. That actually changed somehow with the RF 35 F/1.8. It was the lens I got initially with the EOS R as well, also because it was such a good deal, and I do not regret it a bit. The build quality is similar to the RF 16 and the RF 50 F/1.8, so I do see why that should be a problem either. However, if you do not like the 35 mm FL, maybe you coudl conser the RF 24 F/1.8 if it is available already. No idea really, as I do not follow lens announcements closely anymore these days, I have too many as it stands . Supposedly, they were going to release an RF 28 F/1.8 as well, no idea on its status either.

Basically, I only buy and keep lenses of which I like IQ and rendering, and from an RF POV I currently own RF 35 F/1.8 Macro, RF 50 F/1.2L, RF 85 F/1.2L, RF 24-105 F/4L, and RF 24-240 F/4-F/6.3. EF lenes I still own and use are Samyang 10 F/3.5 XT Premium, EOS 24L II, 135L , 180L Macro, 100-400L II, TS-E 17L, TS-E 24L II, TS-E 135L, both extenders v III, and a couple of 3rd party converters, which I only use if I want to fool the camera into thinking I do not use a converter or extender.

I do think it is a shame you are wary to try another RF 24-105L, as I do think you are missing out. I have in the past tried out 5 to 10 different copies of a lens if I could and if they'd allow me too, but that was in a brick and mortar store. Especially with the 100-400L Mark I and EF 50 F/1.2L that made a big difference. I got the best of 3 100-400Ls, and best of 5 EF 50 F/1.2Ls at the time, which was in the period they had significant focus shift problems.

I have owned the EF 28 F/1.8 and EF 85 F/1.8 as well in the past, but never really liked the 85 with its fringing issues wide open, and the 28 I only sold when I got the 24L Mark I and found I never used it anymore.

As to the RF 14-35 F/4L, I'd say go for it if you really want it, it is a great lens, and the only things that distinguish it from its bigger sibling, the RF 15-35 F/2.8L are f-stop, size, slightly bigger but significant range, weight and price. It is on my wish list as an avid landscape shooter, and it is very good.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

I use it with the EOS R, very happy with it. I think it compares favorably with the EF 70-200, which has been my sharpest lens.

Works well for me, and I like the range. When I first started using SLR cameras, my go to was a 28mm prime. I feel better having shot this at 105mm yesterday rather than get close with a 28mm.

snegron wrote in post #19511211
I'm a little concerned about the possibility of getting another dud.

I'm now searching for an alternative to this lens. I'm thinking of maybe the RF 14-35mm f4.0L. If I could find small, sharp primes, I would probably go that route as well. I currently have the RF 16mm f2.8 and RF 50mm f1.8. My other lenses are EF (28mm f1.8 USM, 85mm f1.8 USM, 70-200mmf2.8L, 300mm f4.0L). I use them with an EF to RF adapter. I would be happy if I could find a decent, fast, sharp, well-built 35mm lens. I'm a bit apprehensive about the RF 35mm f1.8 because I have read a few reviews criticizing it's build quality and non-stellar sharpness.

Fwiw, I sold my old EF 35mm f2.0 IS some time ago. I don't think I'd buy another one.

I never used the EF versions of the 24-105, but I have the RF version and I'm very happy with it as a general purpose lens.

I'd also add that I have the RF 35, and it is a great little lens! So, don't write that off based on the old EF 35 f/2.

Here is an example RF 24-105 image:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2mVS​HeL

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2m9e​jKB

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2k8H​fuH

That is the first RF lens I bought for both my R7 and R5.
I love using this lens.

S.R.M. wrote in post #19513099
I never used the EF versions of the 24-105, but I have the RF version and I'm very happy with it as a general purpose lens.

I'd also add that I have the RF 35, and it is a great little lens! So, don't write that off based on the old EF 35 f/2.

Here is an example RF 24-105 image:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2mVS​HeL The Boatshed at Dove Lake by Stephen Mudge, on Flickr

And a couple of RF35 shots:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2m9e​jKB Fog in the City by Stephen Mudge, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2k8H​fuH Story Bridge in Orange by Stephen Mudge, on Flickr

Nice images! I ended up returning the RF 24-105 and purchased an RF 35mm f1.8.

It's pretty sharp so far. It's now part of my 3 lens camera kit; R6 with RF 16mm f2.8, RF 35mm f1.8 and EF 85mm f1.8 USM.

I'm still debating which 100 macro to get: the EF or the RF version.

snegron wrote in post #19526535
Nice images! I ended up returning the RF 24-105 and purchased an RF 35mm f1.8.

It's pretty sharp so far. It's now part of my 3 lens camera kit; R6 with RF 16mm f2.8, RF 35mm f1.8 and EF 85mm f1.8 USM.

I'm still debating which 100 macro to get: the EF or the RF version.

Congrats, good choice regardless!

As to the macro, the RF version, no doubts about it.
More options, and it happens to be better too.

Kind regards, Wim