RF24-105/4 performance

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
SteveinLouisville Senior Member • Posts: 1,128
Re: My own idiosyncratic lens testing criteria

MAC wrote:

Peak freak wrote:

SteveinLouisville wrote:

Peak freak wrote:

SteveinLouisville wrote:

When I get a lens, particularly an expensive one, I test it the way I will display it at its largest size. I print it on my Canon ip8720 at 13x19 inches (the largest I can print) and look at it at the viewing distance of the hypotenuse, which is the closest the distance a print should be viewed by someone with 20/20 vision. In this instance, the minimum viewing distance is 23 inches.

I look at it under good light and if it looks good to me, it's done.

I understand this is just my standard, but it has never let me down.

Since I just traded my EF 24-105 f4.0L ii and RF 24-105 STM for the RF 24-105 f4.0L I will print one when I shoot one I really like and see how it fairs. Just shot a few with it so far. So far, so good.

Note: I made the trade not due to any dissatisfaction with the IQ of either lens; My EF 24-105 f4.0L was gathering dust because it is front heavy and ungainly on my RP and if I traded it, I might as well trade the RF STM since it would duplicate the zoom range. I highly recommend the STM for those on a budget or who need the lightest RF option in this zoom range.

Good feedback, thanks.

I am lucky enough to live in New Zealand. I have spent many years exploring, going on adventures, and photographing it.

I have seen some amazing things, and have some amazing images as a result. But, there are a lot of good landscape photographers in New Zealand. If you want to stand out, or even just be competitive, your image quality has to be of a high standard.

For the results I aspire to, they have to print big, without imperfections (which is mostly objective, but a little subjective too).

I expect people will (correctly) point out that the RF 24-105 is not the lens for 'big, perfect' prints but I believe there is a convergence where good enough (unique) content will trump less than perfect quality. The trick is, get that unique content at the best possible quality that circumstances will allow. [Meaning you might have to use a zoom instead of primes for example].

If someone craves great big prints of landscapes, edge to edge fantastic, I would think they would be shooting Medium Format. With small format, I think they wouldn't be using a F4.0 zoom, but I don't know. If it doesn't meet your expectations, rent something, test it, only buy it if it satisfies you.

Yep, yes and yep again, you are correct. One of New Zealand's best landscape photographers, Andris Apse, does most of his work in wide format film - it is stunning.

However, modern, compact, high performing digital gear opens up opportunities that might otherwise be impractical. EG shooting from a kayak on a lake or river like I do.

I think the RF 24-105/4 is a capable lens for the stuff that I do, absolutely it is. It's just that these lenses have tolerances for variation and I was trying to get a handle on peoples thoughts regarding this. It is somewhat inconclusive. Some people declare their lens fine over the focal range, others have given up on the lens.

Therefore, I can do all the research, renting, or otherwise, but if I buy a 'poor' copy (three now - one decentered, one faulty, and this one) then it gets a bit tiresome. I'm sure Canon will tell me that this lens is 'within spec', and it probably is. I am simply not satisfied with its performance at 35mm.

On that last note, if you don't mind, what do you think of the IQ difference between 35 and 42mm. Acceptable?

[42mm on the left, 35 on the right. Only difference is I tilted the lens for the 35mm shot. These weren't test shots. I had no idea 35mm was a weak spot]

but 2d target doesn't look like this

Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

Neither of those examples look good.  I am not sure it if is the resolution of the upload, the screen I am using that is displaying them or something else.  Was the focus point on the tree?  Is this a tiny postage stamp sized crop or a large part of the frame?

I haven't had my RF 24-105 f4.0L very long, so I haven't shot any landscapes with it yet.  If 35mm is critically important, the small RF 35mm 1.8 is excellent.  Here is one I shot with it at f8.0 with it last fall in a local park.  I used auto focus point selection and it chose the strand of branches with leaves at the top.  This is uncropped.

If I can swing by the park today, I will shoot some test shots with my zoom and see what kind of results I get at 35-40mm.

Cherokee Park, Louisville, KY

 SteveinLouisville's gear list:SteveinLouisville's gear list
Canon EOS RP Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM +4 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow