Canon RF 24-105 f4 vs RF 24-70mm f2.8

[Mongrel]

@ David Franklin

Thank you. I REALLY appreciated your perspective on this.

VERY helpful.

--
Just think, if every key-stroke was a shutter-press we would all be pros by now...

 

[MarcoE]

"The big disappointment (subjective, I know) was that I did not find 105 mm to be longer enough than 70 to matter"

I am enjoying my 24-105mm, that said I fully agree with this so far. I don't find it really much different than when I had a 24-70mm Tamron G2 on my D810. I also did like 2.8 for better blur/separation outside. This does make me reconsider to sell and maybe get a 2.8.

I know this is the Internet and all. But it is now really amazing me why this subject matter has gotten as much mileage as it has. These 2 lenses are different animals intended for a different market/audience. Not that I'm making the comparison, but you do NOT make a silk purse out of a sows ear. The RF24-105L is better then it should be first of all, let me say that. It's a bargain for it's level of performance and build quality.

But (and I do mean BUT) they are in few if any ways equal. You DO get what you pay for. If one doesn't have it or want to part with the $$$ it's not going to cause them to lose sleep at night I assure you. The RF27-70 f2.8L was intended for the professional that uses their gear quite regularly and in some cases less then ideal weather conditions and events. No there isn't much to talk about regarding the difference between 70mm and 105mm. Especially if you're half way skilled in your competent software. And of course assuming perhaps you're working with the likes of a R5 45mp body.

You can go around and around this subject for whatever reason you wish. It certainly in the end won't have much (in reality) to do with final levels of performance in all realms of what a lens is for. So I guess if it trips your trigger go right ahead and continue to beat this dead horse. Bottom line, the differences are there, yes they are important to "some" and not to others. So let's leave it at that. You care or you don't which is more like the real bottom line.

I have been surprised by the difference in the discussion on here about these lenses compared to the Canon DSLR lens forum. There the arguments are rife about the minutiae of difference in quality sometimes!
I changed from EF 24-105 to EF 24-70 due to the (to me) obvious image quality improvements. I get the sense that a lot of people here see less difference in the two RF lenses as the RF 24-105 is so much better than the EF (at least the mk 1 I had). So, now I have the R5, I am conflicted. I never need f2.8, but I prefer the best engineering/image quality there is even though I am an amateur with much less talent than many!

I have tested both lenses intensively yesterday. Tested both in all kind of different situations ; indoor, outdoor, low light, bright light etc. Of course in low light you notice the difference but under normal circumstances I sometimes found the 24-105mm at the tele end even more pleasant in the way it renders. For low light I ordered a 35mm prima which wil also become my walk around lens when I don't want to be in the spotlight as "hey he has some expensive equipment...".

 

[Kokopelli_Rocks]

"The big disappointment (subjective, I know) was that I did not find 105 mm to be longer enough than 70 to matter"

I am enjoying my 24-105mm, that said I fully agree with this so far. I don't find it really much different than when I had a 24-70mm Tamron G2 on my D810. I also did like 2.8 for better blur/separation outside. This does make me reconsider to sell and maybe get a 2.8.

I know this is the Internet and all. But it is now really amazing me why this subject matter has gotten as much mileage as it has. These 2 lenses are different animals intended for a different market/audience. Not that I'm making the comparison, but you do NOT make a silk purse out of a sows ear. The RF24-105L is better then it should be first of all, let me say that. It's a bargain for it's level of performance and build quality.

But (and I do mean BUT) they are in few if any ways equal. You DO get what you pay for. If one doesn't have it or want to part with the $$$ it's not going to cause them to lose sleep at night I assure you. The RF27-70 f2.8L was intended for the professional that uses their gear quite regularly and in some cases less then ideal weather conditions and events. No there isn't much to talk about regarding the difference between 70mm and 105mm. Especially if you're half way skilled in your competent software. And of course assuming perhaps you're working with the likes of a R5 45mp body.

You can go around and around this subject for whatever reason you wish. It certainly in the end won't have much (in reality) to do with final levels of performance in all realms of what a lens is for. So I guess if it trips your trigger go right ahead and continue to beat this dead horse. Bottom line, the differences are there, yes they are important to "some" and not to others. So let's leave it at that. You care or you don't which is more like the real bottom line.

I have been surprised by the difference in the discussion on here about these lenses compared to the Canon DSLR lens forum. There the arguments are rife about the minutiae of difference in quality sometimes!
I changed from EF 24-105 to EF 24-70 due to the (to me) obvious image quality improvements. I get the sense that a lot of people here see less difference in the two RF lenses as the RF 24-105 is so much better than the EF (at least the mk 1 I had). So, now I have the R5, I am conflicted. I never need f2.8, but I prefer the best engineering/image quality there is even though I am an amateur with much less talent than many!

It's a pretty academic argument for us when all three RF L standard zooms are out of stock at Canon UK and WEX. If money is no object the 24-70mm is the better lens provided the 100mm focal length isn't important to you and you've got a 70-200mm zoom, but the Law of Diminishing Returns does come into this. The 24-70mm is twice the price of the 24-105, as well as the weight of a packet of ground coffee heavier. For the price of the 24-70mm you could buy the 24-105mm L lens and throw in the 800mm f/11 and the 50mm f/1.8. If you want the best engineering/image quality, the 28-70mm f/2 is only £800 (<⅓) more than the 24-70mm, but it's a pound heavier i.e., twice the weight of the 24-105mm.

I like the 100mm focal length a lot and there's no way to get comparable image at that focal length by cropping from 70mm, no matter how good the lens or how many spare pixels you have. It's a different matter if all you need is 75mm or you have an equally expensive 70-200mm lens at hand to change to.

I agree with everything you are saying. I don't understand the posts acting like there is a binary - Right and Wrong answer to this question.

Personally I really like the RF 24-105 f4. In the EF lenses, I liked the idea of the 24-105, but I kept seeing too much variation the samples, at least in the MK1 versions. I personally like the 70-105 extra reach compared to my 24-70 f2.8. Sure I can use my 70-200, but it is twice as long, heavy and I generally use the 24-105 for the majority of my walk around images.

For those who want the absolute best image quality and don't mind to change lenses I would think fast primes might be a better approach. In my rangefinder days and early FD days I shot exclusively with primes. I have several very nice primes in my kit, but only use them for a few specialized situations. Personally when I was shooting events I would have a prime on one camera, but my main camera had my 24-70 f2.8.

I agree with ProDude, if you are a working pro doing events a solid 24-70 f 2.8 is a key lens. For others, the choice depends. If budget is not an issue, and you prefer the 24-70 length and have an extra $1,200 the f2.8 is a good choice. Others may have the extra, budget but prefer to use it for other areas of their kit.

For MY USAGE, I find the RF 24-105 f4 a great lens to have in my kit. I find the length, weight, speed, AF perfect for a walk around lens. I also find the image quality produced by the lens to be outstanding.

The choice is not Black and White/Right or Wrong. You should make the choice based on YOUR needs. Everything I have said above is MY OPINION, not fact, and based on my 45 years of photography. Others opinions expressed here are equally valuable.

 

[juliemeikle]

"The big disappointment (subjective, I know) was that I did not find 105 mm to be longer enough than 70 to matter"

I am enjoying my 24-105mm, that said I fully agree with this so far. I don't find it really much different than when I had a 24-70mm Tamron G2 on my D810. I also did like 2.8 for better blur/separation outside. This does make me reconsider to sell and maybe get a 2.8.

I know this is the Internet and all. But it is now really amazing me why this subject matter has gotten as much mileage as it has. These 2 lenses are different animals intended for a different market/audience. Not that I'm making the comparison, but you do NOT make a silk purse out of a sows ear. The RF24-105L is better then it should be first of all, let me say that. It's a bargain for it's level of performance and build quality.

But (and I do mean BUT) they are in few if any ways equal. You DO get what you pay for. If one doesn't have it or want to part with the $$$ it's not going to cause them to lose sleep at night I assure you. The RF27-70 f2.8L was intended for the professional that uses their gear quite regularly and in some cases less then ideal weather conditions and events. No there isn't much to talk about regarding the difference between 70mm and 105mm. Especially if you're half way skilled in your competent software. And of course assuming perhaps you're working with the likes of a R5 45mp body.

You can go around and around this subject for whatever reason you wish. It certainly in the end won't have much (in reality) to do with final levels of performance in all realms of what a lens is for. So I guess if it trips your trigger go right ahead and continue to beat this dead horse. Bottom line, the differences are there, yes they are important to "some" and not to others. So let's leave it at that. You care or you don't which is more like the real bottom line.

I have been surprised by the difference in the discussion on here about these lenses compared to the Canon DSLR lens forum. There the arguments are rife about the minutiae of difference in quality sometimes!
I changed from EF 24-105 to EF 24-70 due to the (to me) obvious image quality improvements. I get the sense that a lot of people here see less difference in the two RF lenses as the RF 24-105 is so much better than the EF (at least the mk 1 I had). So, now I have the R5, I am conflicted. I never need f2.8, but I prefer the best engineering/image quality there is even though I am an amateur with much less talent than many!

It's a pretty academic argument for us when all three RF L standard zooms are out of stock at Canon UK and WEX. If money is no object the 24-70mm is the better lens provided the 100mm focal length isn't important to you and you've got a 70-200mm zoom, but the Law of Diminishing Returns does come into this. The 24-70mm is twice the price of the 24-105, as well as the weight of a packet of ground coffee heavier. For the price of the 24-70mm you could buy the 24-105mm L lens and throw in the 800mm f/11 and the 50mm f/1.8. If you want the best engineering/image quality, the 28-70mm f/2 is only £800 (<⅓) more than the 24-70mm, but it's a pound heavier i.e., twice the weight of the 24-105mm.

I like the 100mm focal length a lot and there's no way to get comparable image at that focal length by cropping from 70mm, no matter how good the lens or how many spare pixels you have. It's a different matter if all you need is 75mm or you have an equally expensive 70-200mm lens at hand to change to.

I agree with everything you are saying. I don't understand the posts acting like there is a binary - Right and Wrong answer to this question.

Personally I really like the RF 24-105 f4. In the EF lenses, I liked the idea of the 24-105, but I kept seeing too much variation the samples, at least in the MK1 versions. I personally like the 70-105 extra reach compared to my 24-70 f2.8. Sure I can use my 70-200, but it is twice as long, heavy and I generally use the 24-105 for the majority of my walk around images.

For those who want the absolute best image quality and don't mind to change lenses I would think fast primes might be a better approach. In my rangefinder days and early FD days I shot exclusively with primes. I have several very nice primes in my kit, but only use them for a few specialized situations. Personally when I was shooting events I would have a prime on one camera, but my main camera had my 24-70 f2.8.

I agree with ProDude, if you are a working pro doing events a solid 24-70 f 2.8 is a key lens. For others, the choice depends. If budget is not an issue, and you prefer the 24-70 length and have an extra $1,200 the f2.8 is a good choice. Others may have the extra, budget but prefer to use it for other areas of their kit.

For MY USAGE, I find the RF 24-105 f4 a great lens to have in my kit. I find the length, weight, speed, AF perfect for a walk around lens. I also find the image quality produced by the lens to be outstanding.

The choice is not Black and White/Right or Wrong. You should make the choice based on YOUR needs. Everything I have said above is MY OPINION, not fact, and based on my 45 years of photography. Others opinions expressed here are equally valuable.

Lots of sense here. My Mk1 EF 24-105 was not stellar hence buying the EF24-70 f4. My indecision now is whether the RF24-105 will give me the image quality I am after. Usually on a tripod so not a walkabout.

 

[Kokopelli_Rocks]

Lots of sense here. My Mk1 EF 24-105 was not stellar hence buying the EF24-70 f4. My indecision now is whether the RF24-105 will give me the image quality I am after. Usually on a tripod so not a walkabout.

I don't do a lot of tripod work so I can't say for sure. I did buy a new tripod with my R5. My daughter took my old one :-D. If you have a rental place near you might want to rent one for a day.

 

[RDM5546]

"The big disappointment (subjective, I know) was that I did not find 105 mm to be longer enough than 70 to matter"

I am enjoying my 24-105mm, that said I fully agree with this so far. I don't find it really much different than when I had a 24-70mm Tamron G2 on my D810. I also did like 2.8 for better blur/separation outside. This does make me reconsider to sell and maybe get a 2.8.

I know this is the Internet and all. But it is now really amazing me why this subject matter has gotten as much mileage as it has. These 2 lenses are different animals intended for a different market/audience. Not that I'm making the comparison, but you do NOT make a silk purse out of a sows ear. The RF24-105L is better then it should be first of all, let me say that. It's a bargain for it's level of performance and build quality.

But (and I do mean BUT) they are in few if any ways equal. You DO get what you pay for. If one doesn't have it or want to part with the $$$ it's not going to cause them to lose sleep at night I assure you. The RF27-70 f2.8L was intended for the professional that uses their gear quite regularly and in some cases less then ideal weather conditions and events. No there isn't much to talk about regarding the difference between 70mm and 105mm. Especially if you're half way skilled in your competent software. And of course assuming perhaps you're working with the likes of a R5 45mp body.

You can go around and around this subject for whatever reason you wish. It certainly in the end won't have much (in reality) to do with final levels of performance in all realms of what a lens is for. So I guess if it trips your trigger go right ahead and continue to beat this dead horse. Bottom line, the differences are there, yes they are important to "some" and not to others. So let's leave it at that. You care or you don't which is more like the real bottom line.

I have been surprised by the difference in the discussion on here about these lenses compared to the Canon DSLR lens forum. There the arguments are rife about the minutiae of difference in quality sometimes!
I changed from EF 24-105 to EF 24-70 due to the (to me) obvious image quality improvements. I get the sense that a lot of people here see less difference in the two RF lenses as the RF 24-105 is so much better than the EF (at least the mk 1 I had). So, now I have the R5, I am conflicted. I never need f2.8, but I prefer the best engineering/image quality there is even though I am an amateur with much less talent than many!

I have tested both lenses intensively yesterday. Tested both in all kind of different situations ; indoor, outdoor, low light, bright light etc. Of course in low light you notice the difference but under normal circumstances I sometimes found the 24-105mm at the tele end even more pleasant in the way it renders. For low light I ordered a 35mm prima which wil also become my walk around lens when I don't want to be in the spotlight as "hey he has some expensive equipment...".

If you never need f2.8 and then the f4 may be your best choice it weighs less and costs considerable less. I see no reason why you would buy the f2.8 lens. I have the RF 14-35mmf2.8 and the RF 24-70f2.8. For my use they are core to my use of my R and R5. I have also the RF 24-105mm because it is an excellent IQ lens than rugged, lighter and inexpensive. I do use f2.8 and I find than to be a core requirement for some of my shooting. I do not like to change lens in the field unnecessarily. Both f2.8 and f4 are excellent quality lenses. People buy what they want.

 

[RDKirk]

Of course, I also bought the simply amazing RF 70-200 f/2.8 as well, making the choice much easier; the 70-200 is much better, in almost every way possible, than is the 24-105 at the 70-105 focal lengths, so that that one biggest advantage of the RF 24-105 disappeared for my work, when carrying at least both those lenses is normal operating procedure. And, besides gaining the one f/stop advantage which is still very helpful in a great deal of my event and other low light work, the 24-70 is definitely sharper in the central 3/4 of the frame, while being about the same or just a hair less sharp in the very far corners as is the 24-105. It is also a little quieter (amazingly so) and faster to focus, and feels just a bit more rugged, with most likely very slightly superior environmental sealing. On the other hand, it is bigger and heavier, but, then again, this is what pros live with to have other advantages.

It sounds like if you had not also bought the RF 70-200, you'd be missing some capability.

Although I want the hell out of the RF 70-200, I can't claim that my own professional needs call for it. But I do need those 25mm beyond the 24-70.

 

[David Franklin]

Of course. That's pretty much what I also already said in the post from which you're quoting. But, I also needed the extra 95mm from 105mm to 200mm. And, as I also said, the RF 70-200 at 70-105mm is far better than the RF 24-105mm is, at that same range of 70-105mm. The RF 70-200 f/2.8 is only a very small amount larger in carry position than is the RF 24-105. So, of course, as a working pro, the 2-lens proposition is nearly inevitable over a 24-105 only, and it's why the 24-70 and 70-200, plus the wider 15-35, are often referred to as the "holy trinity" of most used and most carried lenses. The RF f/2.8 versions have only made this choice much more attractive.

Finally, as I, again, already stated, I think that the RF 24-105 is the best choice for a single walk-around lens or for a serious amateur not needing the expensive RF 70-200 f/2.8 as well. For working pros with jobs that span more than a very narrow range of subject opportunities and pay even relatively moderate fees, having just the 24-105 is not a good condition to be in, unless lack of funds is the overwhelming limiting factor.

Just my opinion.

--
Keep learning; share knowledge; think seriously about outcomes; seek wisdom.

 

[thunder storm]

The RF 24-70mm f/2.8 will be a bit better compared to the RF 24-105 f/4.0, however, especially in de standard focal range, zooms will be just zooms, no matter what zoom you buy. Even the f/2.0 28-70mm L - although it renders like a prime - doesn't give prime sharpness. Not saying the f/2.0 isn't sharp, just to put the difference between the f/2.8 and f/4.0 in perspective.

Once the difference between the f/2.8 and the f/4.0 is worth the extra money just because of sharpness&contrast etc., it might be time to have a hard look on a couple of primes. Get a mix of two, three or four lenses from all the 24/28/35/40/45/50/85/100/105mm options suiting your needs the best, crop a bit when needed, and you're good to go. Or pick the f/4.0 L zoom and one or two primes for the your most important focal lengths. The difference between those primes and the f/4.0 L zoom will be way more substantial than the differences between the f/2.8 L and f/4.0L.

 

[Nimonus]

Unless you shoot in manually focus only, trust me, to choose a lens as fast as possible if you can afford.

 

[RDKirk]

Unless you shoot in manually focus only, trust me, to choose a lens as fast as possible if you can afford.

Why? What makes that the most important criterion for a lens purchase?

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

 

[Nimonus]

Unless you shoot in manually focus only, trust me, to choose a lens as fast as possible if you can afford.

Why? What makes that the most important criterion for a lens purchase?

The bigger the aperture, the more accurate AF will be.

Remember camera always AF at max aperture.

This is due to the mechanism running behind the phase detection AF. It's not only because of brighter, it separates the subject from "left and right" wider meanwhile gets a more accurate distancing information.

Most people ignored it.

 

[thunder storm]

Unless you shoot in manually focus only, trust me, to choose a lens as fast as possible if you can afford.

Why? What makes that the most important criterion for a lens purchase?

The bigger the aperture, the more accurate AF will be.

Remember camera always AF at max aperture.

This is due to the mechanism running behind the phase detection AF. It's not only because of brighter, it separates the subject from "left and right" wider meanwhile gets a more accurate distancing information.

It's the first time for me to read this argument.

Most people ignored it.

 

[Nimonus]

Unless you shoot in manually focus only, trust me, to choose a lens as fast as possible if you can afford.

Why? What makes that the most important criterion for a lens purchase?

The bigger the aperture, the more accurate AF will be.

Remember camera always AF at max aperture.

This is due to the mechanism running behind the phase detection AF. It's not only because of brighter, it separates the subject from "left and right" wider meanwhile gets a more accurate distancing information.

It's the first time for me to read this argument.

Most people ignored it.

 

[juliemeikle]

After much thought and indecision, my choice has been to hold off buying RF lenses for now. I have excellent EF L lenses so I will adapt for now and decide once I am used to the R5. I think that is more sensible for me . By then maybe there will be more choice in the RF line up.

 

[Mongrel]

After much thought and indecision, my choice has been to hold off buying RF lenses for now. I have excellent EF L lenses so I will adapt for now and decide once I am used to the R5. I think that is more sensible for me . By then maybe there will be more choice in the RF line up.

Me too.....

 

[Nimonus]

Canon has some "fake" F2. 8 EF lenses even it's L.

These lenses are metering F2. 8, not AF F2. 8, they don't support some of the double cross AF points on DSLR.

 

[ProDude]

Canon has some "fake" F2. 8 EF lenses even it's L.

These lenses are metering F2. 8, not AF F2. 8, they don't support some of the double cross AF points on DSLR.

You have to also understand that the term "compatible" does not insinuate that ALL features of the new RF tech is provided in a EF lens. It's NOT. The speed and image stabilization is NOT equal to the RF offerings due to the extra pin configuration and interface of what they've added for the RF lenses. By all means hold off till you're ready. A better choice will likely result.

 

[Nimonus]

Canon has some "fake" F2. 8 EF lenses even it's L.

These lenses are metering F2. 8, not AF F2. 8, they don't support some of the double cross AF points on DSLR.

You have to also understand that the term "compatible" does not insinuate that ALL features of the new RF tech is provided in a EF lens. It's NOT. The speed and image stabilization is NOT equal to the RF offerings due to the extra pin configuration and interface of what they've added for the RF lenses. By all means hold off till you're ready. A better choice will likely result.

 

[ProDude]

Canon has some "fake" F2. 8 EF lenses even it's L.

These lenses are metering F2. 8, not AF F2. 8, they don't support some of the double cross AF points on DSLR.

You have to also understand that the term "compatible" does not insinuate that ALL features of the new RF tech is provided in a EF lens. It's NOT. The speed and image stabilization is NOT equal to the RF offerings due to the extra pin configuration and interface of what they've added for the RF lenses. By all means hold off till you're ready. A better choice will likely result.

RF 28-70 gets 8 stop stabilization without any optical IS.

The extra pins may be for control ring, shooting distance or other information and controlling exchange. It may be not IS related at all even though everybody said so.

I do apologize but don't recall the details of exactly where I did read that unless a RF lens was the one in use it did NOT take full advantage of the IBIS. Hence a EF lens would NOT where a RF lens always will, of course including those that do not have it built into the lens. I would imagine a good Google search might tell you this as well.