RF24-105/4 performance

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Dan W Contributing Member • Posts: 738
Re: RF24-105/4 performance
2

Abbott Schindler wrote:

I'm with MAC, davel33 and Cotswolds. I've got both the EF 24-105L (I) and RF 24-105L and plan to keep both for various reasons. Complaints and praise for Canon's 24-105L lenses are numerous. Every lens has strengths and weaknesses. I, for one, don't expect a lens with that much zoom range to be perfect at all FLs and focus distances. But both of my lenses are much better than "just OK" and none of the 24-105's I've used has ever been "just so-so" or "inadequate" or anything like that. They all work as I expected.

But I'm not a pixel peeper. I got past that with my 1D Mark III or IV. Among other things, what you see when pixel peeping depends on which Raw processor you used (because each applies its own defaults when initially rendering the file), your monitor, and other things in the image rendering/viewing chain. For example, do you wear glasses? If so, progressive lenses? And if you wear glasses, are you paying attention to your head angle when viewing around the image? Nobody talks about that.

DoF: it's not just "the plane of focus". It's also Circle of Confusion and its effect on what we perceive as "sharp". The trees in your image are separated laterally. What's their distance. What's their separation along your line of sight?

The bottom line, though, is whether the image is suitably sharp for your intended use. Frankly, if I plan to do a WA shot, I use my 16-35 f/4L. If ultrawide I use a 11-24L. If I want telephoto it's the 70-200. Each of these performs a bit better in the overlapping FL range than the 24-105L, but then I end up carrying 2-3 lenses and needing to switch among them.

The 24-105L's a great general purpose lens. I've made excellent 17x22" prints from crops (taken from wherever I choose around the frame) from shots with that lens on both 5D Mark IV and 5DsR files. That's fine with me.

Cotswold makes a very good point about working the image (aka "creating an image") vs looking for perfection in the gear that took the image.

Totally agree. Not saying some things don't slip past Quality control at times but for me anyway, its a great lens for $1100 US. I'm using a 27 inch iMac that has a phenomenal 5K screen, so if it looks sharp from 3 feet to where I'm sitting, its a keeper. I don't need a 200% magnification to look for something I don't like. Only exception is when I'm doing a paid portrait, I want to be able to count the eyelash hairs, but with eye focus on the R system makes getting a sharp eye easy now.

If you need absolute near perfect sharpness, use primes and shoot at f/5.6-f/8. I owned the EF 35mm f/2.0, for a non-L lens it was pretty good. But I replaced it with the RF version and its noticeably sharper. Again maybe not L glass league but nothing I would be embarrassed to sell.  I usually do portraits with my RF 50 f/1.2 or my RF 70-200 f/2.8 Both are just STUPID sharp even wide open and give me the ability to blur out the background when I want.

Maybe the OP would like the RF 24-70 f/2.8 better if zoom is more desired? But like you, my 24-105 f/4 is my default lens for everyday stuff. very sharp for a 4X zoom IMHO.

 Dan W's gear list:Dan W's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow