RF24-105/4 performance

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
OP Peak freak Contributing Member • Posts: 931
Re: RF24-105/4 performance
2

thunder storm wrote:

Larawanista wrote:

And please - not another Ansel Adams blah.

Ansel Adams wasn't a gearhead, he was just a creative person. He wasn't caring about dynamic range for instance and all the other tech nonsense. He just loved to take pictures.

Ah yes, the ol' Ansel Adams thing.

FWIW, I rarely try and get creative with my images. It is all about finding and capturing stunning natural scenes that stand on their own merits because of the content. I want the viewer to be inspired by what they see, rather than the photograph itself.

As such, light and composition are (of course) critical, but technical requirements are very important, and interesting to myself as well.

That is possibly why I (only) come here to DPR for feedback, because it is gear focused.

[This isn't a rant, just an explanation thanks]

MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 16,453
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
SteveinLouisville
SteveinLouisville Senior Member • Posts: 1,230
My own idiosyncratic lens testing criteria

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.

 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 +5 more
OP Peak freak Contributing Member • Posts: 931
Re: RF24-105/4 performance
2

Blokfluitist wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Blokfluitist wrote:

And please - not another Ansel Adams blah.

Feel free to replace 'Ansel Adams' with another great photographer from history that you admire and I think the same holds true

There are those of us who are always chasing the best gear, and for the best reasons, but whilst better gear can help, having great equipment does not make us a great photographer, maybe not even a good one. It is a means to an end and it's up to us to learn to work with what we have.

And how would this make the pictures of the OP sharper at 35mm?

Like I said earlier, if the lens is genuinely faulty, send it back. If not and you’re still not happy with it, sell it. You don’t have to use it!

OP here.

The reason I started this thread was to get an idea of what people think of this lens. Mostly good, but certainly not all.

I can't return it now, like I said, this is my third crack at getting a good one. I just went on my trip and hoped it would be a good copy - and it mostly is.

I am thinking of buying another one, keeping the best, and selling the other one and taking the hit. I figure (for a combination of reasons) that this could end up being a very expensive lens but that won't matter to me if it ends up producing 'good' results across the F/L range.

I mentioned it elsewhere, but my photos generally aren't creative. They have to stand on subjects merits and, depending on what I am photographing, it might be the technical quality that sets them apart form other similar photographic work.

Swapping out lenses can be impractical for myself. I figured that this RF 24-105 is the best of its type, and it maybe is, just not all of them.

Case in point: I (still) marvel at the EF 16-35/4. It is a great lens, partly because there is very little debate about good and bad copies.

thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 7,713
Re: RF24-105/4 performance
1

Peak freak wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Larawanista wrote:

And please - not another Ansel Adams blah.

Ansel Adams wasn't a gearhead, he was just a creative person. He wasn't caring about dynamic range for instance and all the other tech nonsense. He just loved to take pictures.

Ah yes, the ol' Ansel Adams thing.

FWIW, I rarely try and get creative with my images. It is all about finding and capturing stunning natural scenes that stand on their own merits because of the content. I want the viewer to be inspired by what they see, rather than the photograph itself.

Thanks for telling this.  I like this comment.

As such, light and composition are (of course) critical, but technical requirements are very important, and interesting to myself as well.

That is possibly why I (only) come here to DPR for feedback, because it is gear focused.

[This isn't a rant, just an explanation thanks]

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +18 more
OP Peak freak Contributing Member • Posts: 931
Re: My own idiosyncratic lens testing criteria

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].

thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 7,713
Re: RF24-105/4 performance

MAC wrote:

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

For me it is.  For it's stickyness with subject tracking, and it's speed.  I love it.  No problems anymore with fast moving kids.

I'm aware not everyone needs that kind of AF.  And it's certainly not needed in all cases.

The RP is three times as expensive as a used 6D. A 6D is good enough in lots of cases too.  I have some lenses for it. Build in GPS.  If it only would only have just a little bit faster burst rate it would be great for shooting trains from a tripod.

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +18 more
tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 16,767
Re: RF24-105/4 performance

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

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

For me it is. For it's stickyness with subject tracking, and it's speed. I love it. No problems anymore with fast moving kids.

Man, the Rp has better servo AF than any crop DSLR I ever owned (never had FF DSLR).   I have no problem taking pictures of my kids playing with face tracking and even at fast apertures.  Not really sure what else you could need.

I get needing it for high end sports and birds, but I don't get the kid logic.  They aren't that hard to photograph, IMO.

Now burst rate on the other hand.....

I'm aware not everyone needs that kind of AF. And it's certainly not needed in all cases.

The RP is three times as expensive as a used 6D. A 6D is good enough in lots of cases too. I have some lenses for it. Build in GPS. If it only would only have just a little bit faster burst rate it would be great for shooting trains from a tripod.

For me Eye/Face AF is a must have.  6D is probably enough camera for me otherwise, but I face tracking just makes for so many more keepers with portraits and candids.

SteveinLouisville
SteveinLouisville Senior Member • Posts: 1,230
Re: My own idiosyncratic lens testing criteria
1

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.

 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 +5 more
SteveinLouisville
SteveinLouisville Senior Member • Posts: 1,230
Re: RF24-105/4 performance
1

tkbslc wrote:

Peak freak wrote:

Cotswolds wrote:

Not having a go at the OP but is this a case of getting hooked on pixel peeping and looking for issues rather than looking at the image ?

I understand if it's holding you back in making sales or the quality is so bad you don't want to print and hang on the wall but isn't it a case of trying to achieve "perfection" of an image rather than perfecting an image.

Just my view and others may well disagree

Thanks, you raise fair points.

I think the thing that is bugging me is that I didn't go looking for the problem, it just became apparent when processing my images. Some weren't as sharp as others, and they were all around the 35mmF/L.

The images I post are just snapshots. My 'critical' images are of misty forest reflections in early morning light - detailed with good, but not too much, contrast. Shot from a kayak with techniques I have been perfecting for years (kayaks are not stable platforms!) I even bought my EOS R and this lens with the expectation that It was the best available for the work I do. That may still be the case, but the IQ drop-off at 35mm is not really good enough for the work that I am doing. It is unique, limited edition. I needs to be good. [Primes might be the answer but have other limitations under the circumstances].

I don't expect a 4x zoom to be perfect, but it is pretty big and heavy for what it is. I think it has the potential to do the job, maybe just not my copy.

I think it should be close to perfect. It’s not cheap and has L branding. It’s the latest version of the lens.

it’s funny, everyone says they wouldn’t shoot the STM version because it is not good enough. Then someone gets soft pictures with an L lens and they are saying stick with it because softness doesn’t matter. Seems like a weird bias there.

besed on my experience with the lens, it is not normal and I’d prob send it into canon to check alignment. Shouldn’t have an L lens you are afraid to use for pictures that matter.

The STM version is not soft.  Example, one of many, below.

Fill flash pointed at the tree on the left, -3 stops.

 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 +5 more
OP Peak freak Contributing Member • Posts: 931
Re: My own idiosyncratic lens testing criteria

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]

MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 16,453
Re: RF24-105/4 performance

tkbslc wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

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

For me it is. For it's stickyness with subject tracking, and it's speed. I love it. No problems anymore with fast moving kids.

Man, the Rp has better servo AF than any crop DSLR I ever owned (never had FF DSLR). I have no problem taking pictures of my kids playing with face tracking and even at fast apertures. Not really sure what else you could need.

I get needing it for high end sports and birds, but I don't get the kid logic. They aren't that hard to photograph, IMO.

Now burst rate on the other hand.....

agree

I'm aware not everyone needs that kind of AF. And it's certainly not needed in all cases.

The RP is three times as expensive as a used 6D. A 6D is good enough in lots of cases too. I have some lenses for it. Build in GPS. If it only would only have just a little bit faster burst rate it would be great for shooting trains from a tripod.

For me Eye/Face AF is a must have. 6D is probably enough camera for me otherwise, but I face tracking just makes for so many more keepers with portraits and candids.

Agree

 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
Larawanista
Larawanista Veteran Member • Posts: 4,736
Re: RF24-105/4 performance

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, 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, 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...

If this isn't sharp wide enough, I don't know what sharp is. R6 default jpeg output.

-- hide signature --

"Photography is therapeutic."
https://500px.com/joshcruzphotos

 Larawanista's gear list:Larawanista's gear list
Canon EOS M3 Canon EOS R Canon EOS RP Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +10 more
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 7,713
Re: RF24-105/4 performance

tkbslc wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

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

For me it is. For it's stickyness with subject tracking, and it's speed. I love it. No problems anymore with fast moving kids.

Man, the Rp has better servo AF than any crop DSLR I ever owned (never had FF DSLR). I have no problem taking pictures of my kids playing with face tracking and even at fast apertures. Not really sure what else you could need.

I had the R before, so I know what I was missing.

I get needing it for high end sports and birds, but I don't get the kid logic.

Running and biking kids can be as challenging as sports for an RF system. It's not only about absolute speed, another important factor is how close that speed is happening to your camera.

They aren't that hard to photograph, IMO.

It's not hard, I just need a camera with speedy AF.  But if you don't and the RP works for you, don't spill your money!

Now burst rate on the other hand.....

I only use bursts for fast trains sometimes, not for kids.

I'm aware not everyone needs that kind of AF. And it's certainly not needed in all cases.

The RP is three times as expensive as a used 6D. A 6D is good enough in lots of cases too. I have some lenses for it. Build in GPS. If it only would only have just a little bit faster burst rate it would be great for shooting trains from a tripod.

For me Eye/Face AF is a must have. 6D is probably enough camera for me otherwise, but I face tracking just makes for so many more keepers with portraits and candids.

I know, but if you're doing landscapes/cityscapes and posed portraits only, the 6D works. Great battery life. Build in GPS. And it's only 400 euro.

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +18 more
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 7,713
Re: RF24-105/4 performance

Larawanista 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.....

If this isn't sharp wide enough, I don't know what sharp is. R6 default jpeg output.

Looks good.

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +18 more
R2D2 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,815
Re: RF24-105/4 performance

Larawanista wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

axlotl wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Larawanista wrote:

And please - not another Ansel Adams blah.

Ansel Adams wasn't a gearhead, he was just a creative person. He wasn't caring about dynamic range for instance and all the other tech nonsense. He just loved to take pictures.

Apologies to forum menbers for rambling off topic but actually Ansel Adams was intensely involved with Fred Archer in reaching a very thorough understanding of sensitometry culminating in their development of the zone system. He was very exercised by (what we now call) dynamic range and his system was long regarded as the epitome of the technologically sophisticated approach to film exposure, development and printing. Many photographers thought it was indeed a lot of "tech nonsense" possibly because they did not devote sufficient time and effort to understanding his ideas.

Andrew

Couldn’t agree more! I’ve been an Adams admirer and Zone System adherent since day one!

R2

All that I've read about him tells me he's very much what I'd call a creative genius AND a techie.

+1 Adams’ extremely structured technique fit my own style like a glove way back in the darkroom days. I practically lived in the darkroom throughout college!!

Funny thing tho, is that I’ve never been a huge fan of his (ever popular) landscape work, though I own several of his coffee table books. Oddly enough I’ve always much preferred his portraiture!

R2

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 R2D2's gear list:R2D2's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5
MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 16,453
Re: RF24-105/4 performance

Peak freak wrote:

I was hoping this lens would be a 'do it all' at reasonable quality levels. Apart from an anomaly at around 35mm, it does, so there is potential.

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

the MTF50's look good at F8 even at corners and extremes

 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
MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 16,453
Re: My own idiosyncratic lens testing criteria

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)

 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
SteveinLouisville
SteveinLouisville Senior Member • Posts: 1,230
Re: My own idiosyncratic lens testing criteria
1

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 +5 more
Croomrider Contributing Member • Posts: 617
Re: RF24-105/4 performance

Looking at the overall image and then the size of the crops, I think you are expecting too much from a $1000 zoom lens. I know, it's an "L" lens, but to expect any zoom to be perfect through it's entire zoom range at all apertures seems like a tall order even for a modern lens.  I think for what you are trying to accomplish you are going to either have to work around some imperfections or use prime lenses. For the kind of quality you seem to want, I can't believe you aren't looking at a 100 mp medium format camera with primes.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads