OK (but borderline hateful) kit lens

tkbslc wrote:

drsnoopy wrote:

Just use the profile. Nobody’s complaining unless they are looking at the results without a profile. Even better, use DXO Photolab 5 and just forget about it

The problem is that it is bad with the profile at 24mm!

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM IS - Review / Test Report - Analysis (opticallimits.com)

Really "... with the profile ...? Typical example of you NOT fully reading what's written/ posted. You do realize the in-camera corrections are ONLY for JPG images; the "RAW" images are just that (and what they should be), the "RAW" image, and not an issue if using a RAW app that supports the RF 24-107mm STM lens.

Screen-shots from YOUR link:

As to the Optical Limits test using the R5; lets be realistic, who would buy a R5 and use a $400 general purpose lens?

I have not had the time to do detail test shots but have done some "quick" shots around the house.

With the in-camera 'JPG' lens corrections image do not have the dark corners.

OOC JPG; downside to 3200 pixels width

OOC JPG; downside to 3200 pixels width; As noted just a quick hand-held grab shot, and shading at right edge the ambient lighting.

Printed several 8x10 inch prints at 24mm, 50mm, and 105mm and they all look good.

As I already noted the RF 24-105mm STM a inexpensive general purpose lens where the design priorities were obviously for size. weight, and price.

As to around a dozen RF 24-105mm STM online reviews, their reviews are based on what the lens "IS", not on anal intensive 100% pixel peeping; e.g. just several of those I've read their reviews for years and would trust them FAR more than anything you post;

the-digital-picture.com
photographyblog.com
cameralabs.com

I also have no issues PP RF 24-105mm STM with DxO PhotoLab 5.

Jon