OK (but borderline hateful) kit lens

Jon_T wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

Jon_T wrote:

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:

I was speaking of resolution not distortion or vignette , which negates the rest of your rebuttal.

Really? Just confirms what I posted that YOU do not thoroughly READ/ UNDERSTAND what you reply to.

The post you reply to was about "lens profile" which is for the LENS DISTORTION, and the LINK that "YOU" provided is to the LENS DISTORTION/ VIGNETTING section of the review without any clarification your reply was not for distortion but resolution.

Again lens should have been tested with the RP which the lens is primarily for, not the R5.

You're still all TALK and no WALK.

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

Even though it is newer and smaller in most cases prices for a used Canon RF 24-105mm F/4-7.1 IS STM are less than a used Canon EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 STM.

I know why.