RF24-105/4 performance

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 16,261
Re: RF24-105/4 performance

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Larawanista wrote:

MAC wrote:

Larawanista wrote:

Blokfluitist wrote:

Modern lenses are many times better optically than those used by previous generations of photographers. Do we take any better photographs? If not, then it's unlikely to be the lens. They are a means to an end. Photography is an art, it's not about the gear, it's about the person using it. I can't imagine that Ansel Adams would have spent time looking for such issues, he just got on with making great photographs with what he had available to him at the time.

The search for optical perfection is producing lenses with increasingly clinical characteristics, driven both by technological advances and our ability to pixel peep on an unprecedented level, which I frankly think is unhelpful.

The growing community of vintage lens enthusiasts shows there is a desire to get back to what photography is all about - the joy of creating images. It's challenging, interesting and fun to use lenses with what may genuinely be optical imperfections - and create great looking images with them.

So if your copy is genuinely faulty - send it back. If not, and you still don't like it - sell it. Otherwise, learn to work with what it will do for you.

WDF is this rant all about? If you like the lens I don't like, what seems to be the problem? If you are saying make do with what you have, then say that to yourself. I found for my own use a lens that's better than the RF24-105mm which I did not like and thus replaced, end of story. And yes I am taking better photos with the lens I replaced it with. I was not and never was looking for optical perfection. Most are looking for the lens that they like using, the lens that helps them produce what they like. If that's not the RF24-105mm, no one should rant about it. And never assume everyone pixel peeps and that it drives decision to replace lenses or acquire new ones.

And please - not another Ansel Adams blah.

for me, the RF24-105L spends >50% of its time at 24 mm. Canon seriously improved the 24 mm from the EF version 1 (which was dismal) and even improved over the version II.

the 35-150 is a nice dslr lens but has to be adapted for R and is missing a 24 mm go to for taking in the environment. I also use all of the internal DLO in-camera corrections and use the control ring extensively for EC corrections on the fly - I shoot RAW + JPG -- and the jpgs with in camera corrections are the best from Canon in two decades and satisfy 70% + of my shots which don't have to use RAW processing

For my use, 2.8 at 35mm is more important than having a 24mm.

I had a look at that Tamron, and f/2.8 at 35mm is nice, but unfortunately the lens isn't at it's sharpest at 35mm&f/2.8. Stopping down helps a lot, however, once you do that there's no benefit for me, as I don't care so much about the 106-150mm.....

That's the beauty of having choices. Yes I cannot use DLO as a result, which isn't a game changer for me as well.

I've bought a Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0. Yes it needs corrections in post

i want corrections in camera

at a very high cost

The RF lens has 14mm, I would go RF here if I really needed 14mm. There's also the Samyang 14mm f/2.4 XP though.

, but it's a light weight lens, very affordable and pretty good. The RF f/4.0 14-35mm is 1850 euro, my second hand Tamron was only 300 euro.

Now I have to rethink my ownership of the EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM and ef-m 11-22mm, and probably the EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM too.....

For the EF lenses the Tamron is a light weight option too, IBIS replaces IS,

IBIS at a very high cost

The R5 is worth the costs for it's AF alone,

isn’t my RP focus good enough?  How much better is the R5 focus?  $3000 better?

IBIS is just a bonus. And it adds stabilization to a lot of lenses in my case. For Canon it's the only way to stabilize your 50mm by the way unless you're willing to adapt the Tamron 45mm f/1.8.....

haha, good one

...without in camera corrections ;).

funny…I wait for RF50 F1.4

24mm&f/2.8 is in my standard zoom and the Tamron at f/3.2 isn't too far off, and for low light the 40mm f/1.4 crushes the 35mm f/2.0......

For the 11-22mm: it doesn't replace the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 for 18-22mm, and really, I don't do wide angle that often with M, as it can't handle low light situations that well... I great high ISO performance is so much easier than gambling with slow shutterspeeds...

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS RP Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM +9 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