RF24-105/4 performance

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 16,753
Re: RF24-105/4 performance

thunder storm wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

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.

Not to mention all those cheap EF lens options without an adapter making many of them awkwardly long.

I wish I could pretend mirrorless doesn't exist.

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

Croomrider wrote:

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.

I can understand your POV.

I don't expect a 4x zoom to be perfect. For example at 24mm there is some softness at the edges, but the results are still acceptable - it meets my expectations. Indeed, from about 50mm to 105mm it exceeds my expectations. As such I am absolutely sure that this lens can easily produce high quality large prints. It just may not be consistent at that. Working around the imperfections is definitely a possibility. I am very impressed by its longer F/L's.

The point of my post was to gauge whether the lens is capable of 'acceptable' results across the zoom range, or whether it is common to have 'weak' performance at certain F/L's. The majority seem to indicate that it is capable across the range.

The point of the tree crops was that, all else being equal, there is significant sharpness differences between relatively close focal lengths.

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

SteveinLouisville wrote:

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

Thanks for your input.

They are low quality (compressed) 100% near edge crops. The comparison wasn't specifically about the inherent quality of the lens, but the relative quality between different F/L's. All else being equal, 42mm is great, 35mm is soft - I expected better from 35mm, it's not an extreme F/L.

Here is the 35mm image for context. I don't think the technicals are that relevant because with the same focus point and settings, 42mm is fine - if anything 42mm is slightly more demanding because of DoF and magnification.

And the similar shot at 42mm. Same focal point and exp.

Check out the fence posts in the background. At 35mm well outside DoF/CoC. At 42mm acceptable, to me. Something not right.

Johnrr44 Regular Member • Posts: 205
Re: RF24-105/4 performance
1

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.

Ansel Adams did achieve some milestones in evaluating and using the technology available in his time to create the images that expressed his artistic vision--none of which could be described by "blah."  He was not a "gearhead" for the sake of technical perfection in its own right, but he was quite capable of applying the technology that was available, if he found it useful for achieving his ends.  On the other hand, his 4 volume set of books on photographic technique was not filled with admonitions to just love to take pictures.

So, why do I contribute yet more "blah," re A. Adams?  I find it worthwhile to remember his attitude and perspective when reading some of the contributions to this forum.

John

gimp_dad Senior Member • Posts: 2,410
Maybe it's your copy

I think the RF24-105/4LIS is a great travel lens with just the right compromises for its use. Your examples made me take a look through some of my shots with the lens in the FL range you are seeing problems. I couldn't find any shots in 31-38 mm range where I noted blobs of softness like your first example.

Here's just one example from my Europe trip a little over 2 years ago. This was sometime after the incident where I fell off an electric scooter and landed directly on the lens body which was over my shoulder. The lens was pointing down and took the brunt of the fall. It got a big gouge on it but still worked great after re-seating it to the body.

So, 1) I do think you can expect more from your copy, 2) I disagree with those who think the newer L lenses are less robust than the old ones. That is not my experience.

I also have the RF28-70/2L which is fantastic but is not something I would casually carry on a trip like the one where I took this. You can clearly tell that this shot was not a pro shot (look at all the people in the way!). But you can also readily see that it is plenty sharp (focus on the building). I just chose this shot because it is relatively easy to see the sharpness across much of the frame.

I hope this helps. Good luck in your search!

OP Peak freak Contributing Member • Posts: 931
Re: Maybe it's your copy

gimp_dad wrote:

I think the RF24-105/4LIS is a great travel lens with just the right compromises for its use. Your examples made me take a look through some of my shots with the lens in the FL range you are seeing problems. I couldn't find any shots in 31-38 mm range where I noted blobs of softness like your first example.

Here's just one example from my Europe trip a little over 2 years ago. This was sometime after the incident where I fell off an electric scooter and landed directly on the lens body which was over my shoulder. The lens was pointing down and took the brunt of the fall. It got a big gouge on it but still worked great after re-seating it to the body.

So, 1) I do think you can expect more from your copy, 2) I disagree with those who think the newer L lenses are less robust than the old ones. That is not my experience.

I also have the RF28-70/2L which is fantastic but is not something I would casually carry on a trip like the one where I took this. You can clearly tell that this shot was not a pro shot (look at all the people in the way!). But you can also readily see that it is plenty sharp (focus on the building). I just chose this shot because it is relatively easy to see the sharpness across much of the frame.

I hope this helps. Good luck in your search!

Thank you very much for posting this. This is the type of performance I was hoping for - it is very good, and similar to review examples I canvased before buying the lens.

I have been over a lot of my examples now, they are not even close, exhibiting consistent softness and in some cases ghosting on the left hand side (My lens doesn't really come good until over 50mm, when it is surprisingly good)

Based on past experience I doubt Canon (New Zealand) would care at the differences, but I might try shooting 35mm wide open and see if it really falls apart.

I'm going to guess this was OOC or Canon DPP because it is so good.

Here is a (deliberately messed up) example of the sort of problems I am getting. Focused on the left hand forest and recomposed - about 200m so infinity focus at 37mm. Processed in Canon DPP with DLO and sharpening for best case result (Adobe RGB so colors might be off). To be honest I find it pretty disappointing (the center quality is good) and don't really understand how some people seem OK with  this type of result.

Thanks again.

thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 7,681
Re: RF24-105/4 performance

Johnrr44 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.

Ansel Adams did achieve some milestones in evaluating and using the technology available in his time to create the images that expressed his artistic vision--none of which could be described by "blah." He was not a "gearhead" for the sake of technical perfection in its own right, but he was quite capable of applying the technology that was available, if he found it useful for achieving his ends. On the other hand, his 4 volume set of books on photographic technique was not filled with admonitions to just love to take pictures.

Thanks for explaining the

-- 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: 7,681
Re: RF24-105/4 performance

tkbslc wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

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.

Not to mention all those cheap EF lens options without an adapter making many of them awkwardly long.

With EF lenses the "awkwardness" is somewhere, either in the adapter or in the thickness of the body.

I wish I could pretend mirrorless doesn't exist.

-- 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
gimp_dad Senior Member • Posts: 2,410
Re: Maybe it's your copy
2

Peak freak wrote:

gimp_dad wrote:

I think the RF24-105/4LIS is a great travel lens with just the right compromises for its use. Your examples made me take a look through some of my shots with the lens in the FL range you are seeing problems. I couldn't find any shots in 31-38 mm range where I noted blobs of softness like your first example.

Here's just one example from my Europe trip a little over 2 years ago. This was sometime after the incident where I fell off an electric scooter and landed directly on the lens body which was over my shoulder. The lens was pointing down and took the brunt of the fall. It got a big gouge on it but still worked great after re-seating it to the body.

So, 1) I do think you can expect more from your copy, 2) I disagree with those who think the newer L lenses are less robust than the old ones. That is not my experience.

I also have the RF28-70/2L which is fantastic but is not something I would casually carry on a trip like the one where I took this. You can clearly tell that this shot was not a pro shot (look at all the people in the way!). But you can also readily see that it is plenty sharp (focus on the building). I just chose this shot because it is relatively easy to see the sharpness across much of the frame.

I hope this helps. Good luck in your search!

Thank you very much for posting this. This is the type of performance I was hoping for - it is very good, and similar to review examples I canvased before buying the lens.

I have been over a lot of my examples now, they are not even close, exhibiting consistent softness and in some cases ghosting on the left hand side (My lens doesn't really come good until over 50mm, when it is surprisingly good)

Based on past experience I doubt Canon (New Zealand) would care at the differences, but I might try shooting 35mm wide open and see if it really falls apart.

I'm going to guess this was OOC or Canon DPP because it is so good.

This was processed through LR. Color fidelity V2 Landscape defaults. Highlights reduced. Standard lens correction and default sharpening (which I believe is +40 in LR with the R).

Here is a (deliberately messed up) example of the sort of problems I am getting. Focused on the left hand forest and recomposed - about 200m so infinity focus at 37mm. Processed in Canon DPP with DLO and sharpening for best case result (Adobe RGB so colors might be off). To be honest I find it pretty disappointing (the center quality is good) and don't really understand how some people seem OK with this type of result.

Thanks again.

It's a lot easier to debug the equipment part of this issue with more constrained depth of field (maybe harder to find in such a naturally beautiful country like yours :-)).

SteveinLouisville
SteveinLouisville Senior Member • Posts: 1,214
Re: Maybe it's your copy
2

gimp_dad wrote:

Peak freak wrote:

gimp_dad wrote:

This was processed through LR. Color fidelity V2 Landscape defaults. Highlights reduced. Standard lens correction and default sharpening (which I believe is +40 in LR with the R).

Here is a (deliberately messed up) example of the sort of problems I am getting. Focused on the left hand forest and recomposed - about 200m so infinity focus at 37mm. Processed in Canon DPP with DLO and sharpening for best case result (Adobe RGB so colors might be off). To be honest I find it pretty disappointing (the center quality is good) and don't really understand how some people seem OK with this type of result.

Thanks again.

It's a lot easier to debug the equipment part of this issue with more constrained depth of field (maybe harder to find in such a naturally beautiful country like yours :-)).

Not sure if this helps, but here is the result I got today shooting at 35mm with the RF 24-105 f4.0L. Two shots, one at f4.0 and one at f8.0. This is the Art Deco terminal building of our local general aviation airport, less than 2 miles from my house. Both photos were taken from the same spot, about 122 feet (38m) from the building. the focus point was on the Le Relais sign. I don't see any softness on the left side at all. Or anywhere, for that matter.

Opened in DPP4 and an auto gamma adjustment done. That's all.

F4.0

F8.0

 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: Maybe it's your copy

gimp_dad wrote:

Peak freak wrote:

gimp_dad wrote:

I think the RF24-105/4LIS is a great travel lens with just the right compromises for its use. Your examples made me take a look through some of my shots with the lens in the FL range you are seeing problems. I couldn't find any shots in 31-38 mm range where I noted blobs of softness like your first example.

Here's just one example from my Europe trip a little over 2 years ago. This was sometime after the incident where I fell off an electric scooter and landed directly on the lens body which was over my shoulder. The lens was pointing down and took the brunt of the fall. It got a big gouge on it but still worked great after re-seating it to the body.

So, 1) I do think you can expect more from your copy, 2) I disagree with those who think the newer L lenses are less robust than the old ones. That is not my experience.

I also have the RF28-70/2L which is fantastic but is not something I would casually carry on a trip like the one where I took this. You can clearly tell that this shot was not a pro shot (look at all the people in the way!). But you can also readily see that it is plenty sharp (focus on the building). I just chose this shot because it is relatively easy to see the sharpness across much of the frame.

I hope this helps. Good luck in your search!

Thank you very much for posting this. This is the type of performance I was hoping for - it is very good, and similar to review examples I canvased before buying the lens.

I have been over a lot of my examples now, they are not even close, exhibiting consistent softness and in some cases ghosting on the left hand side (My lens doesn't really come good until over 50mm, when it is surprisingly good)

Based on past experience I doubt Canon (New Zealand) would care at the differences, but I might try shooting 35mm wide open and see if it really falls apart.

I'm going to guess this was OOC or Canon DPP because it is so good.

This was processed through LR. Color fidelity V2 Landscape defaults. Highlights reduced. Standard lens correction and default sharpening (which I believe is +40 in LR with the R).

Here is a (deliberately messed up) example of the sort of problems I am getting. Focused on the left hand forest and recomposed - about 200m so infinity focus at 37mm. Processed in Canon DPP with DLO and sharpening for best case result (Adobe RGB so colors might be off). To be honest I find it pretty disappointing (the center quality is good) and don't really understand how some people seem OK with this type of result.

Thanks again.

It's a lot easier to debug the equipment part of this issue with more constrained depth of field (maybe harder to find in such a naturally beautiful country like yours :-)).

Thanks again for your responses. Clearly this lens is capable of delivering very good results. Your example is better than I would demand from such a lens.

I might have a chat to Canon. Part of the reason I don't buy grey market is to retain local warranties so will see how receptive they are.

On a different note, I have been impressed with Adobes sharpening algorithms. I'm not seeing the advantage I thought I would using DPP and DLO, which is good because it is painful to use!

gimp_dad Senior Member • Posts: 2,410
Re: Maybe it's your copy
1

Peak freak wrote:

gimp_dad wrote:

Peak freak wrote:

gimp_dad wrote:

I think the RF24-105/4LIS is a great travel lens with just the right compromises for its use. Your examples made me take a look through some of my shots with the lens in the FL range you are seeing problems. I couldn't find any shots in 31-38 mm range where I noted blobs of softness like your first example.

Here's just one example from my Europe trip a little over 2 years ago. This was sometime after the incident where I fell off an electric scooter and landed directly on the lens body which was over my shoulder. The lens was pointing down and took the brunt of the fall. It got a big gouge on it but still worked great after re-seating it to the body.

So, 1) I do think you can expect more from your copy, 2) I disagree with those who think the newer L lenses are less robust than the old ones. That is not my experience.

I also have the RF28-70/2L which is fantastic but is not something I would casually carry on a trip like the one where I took this. You can clearly tell that this shot was not a pro shot (look at all the people in the way!). But you can also readily see that it is plenty sharp (focus on the building). I just chose this shot because it is relatively easy to see the sharpness across much of the frame.

I hope this helps. Good luck in your search!

Thank you very much for posting this. This is the type of performance I was hoping for - it is very good, and similar to review examples I canvased before buying the lens.

I have been over a lot of my examples now, they are not even close, exhibiting consistent softness and in some cases ghosting on the left hand side (My lens doesn't really come good until over 50mm, when it is surprisingly good)

Based on past experience I doubt Canon (New Zealand) would care at the differences, but I might try shooting 35mm wide open and see if it really falls apart.

I'm going to guess this was OOC or Canon DPP because it is so good.

This was processed through LR. Color fidelity V2 Landscape defaults. Highlights reduced. Standard lens correction and default sharpening (which I believe is +40 in LR with the R).

Here is a (deliberately messed up) example of the sort of problems I am getting. Focused on the left hand forest and recomposed - about 200m so infinity focus at 37mm. Processed in Canon DPP with DLO and sharpening for best case result (Adobe RGB so colors might be off). To be honest I find it pretty disappointing (the center quality is good) and don't really understand how some people seem OK with this type of result.

Thanks again.

It's a lot easier to debug the equipment part of this issue with more constrained depth of field (maybe harder to find in such a naturally beautiful country like yours :-)).

Thanks again for your responses. Clearly this lens is capable of delivering very good results. Your example is better than I would demand from such a lens.

I might have a chat to Canon. Part of the reason I don't buy grey market is to retain local warranties so will see how receptive they are.

I hope you can get the support.  I've actually had two copies of this lens (sold one as part of a kit) because I liked it so much I wanted a backup.  Now my backup will be to live with a heavier lens for a while if anything goes wrong with my RF24-105/4LIS.

On a different note, I have been impressed with Adobes sharpening algorithms. I'm not seeing the advantage I thought I would using DPP and DLO, which is good because it is painful to use!

agreed on this last point.  DPP4 still does a tiny bit better in the noise vs sharpening trade offs than LR but it's extremely close now with the latest release of LR. Certainly not worth the penalty of having to use DPP4...

OP Peak freak Contributing Member • Posts: 931
Re: Maybe it's your copy
1

SteveinLouisville wrote:

gimp_dad wrote:

Peak freak wrote:

gimp_dad wrote:

This was processed through LR. Color fidelity V2 Landscape defaults. Highlights reduced. Standard lens correction and default sharpening (which I believe is +40 in LR with the R).

Here is a (deliberately messed up) example of the sort of problems I am getting. Focused on the left hand forest and recomposed - about 200m so infinity focus at 37mm. Processed in Canon DPP with DLO and sharpening for best case result (Adobe RGB so colors might be off). To be honest I find it pretty disappointing (the center quality is good) and don't really understand how some people seem OK with this type of result.

Thanks again.

It's a lot easier to debug the equipment part of this issue with more constrained depth of field (maybe harder to find in such a naturally beautiful country like yours :-)).

Not sure if this helps, but here is the result I got today shooting at 35mm with the RF 24-105 f4.0L. Two shots, one at f4.0 and one at f8.0. This is the Art Deco terminal building of our local general aviation airport, less than 2 miles from my house. Both photos were taken from the same spot, about 122 feet (38m) from the building. the focus point was on the Le Relais sign. I don't see any softness on the left side at all. Or anywhere, for that matter.

Opened in DPP4 and an auto gamma adjustment done. That's all.

F4.0

F8.0

Thank you for these. My query hasn't been a waste of time!

These are great, I even find it exciting to realise just how good this lens can be. My original thoughts were that this lens is quite large and heavy for a mirrorless zoom, so Canon shouldn't have skimped on IQ - and they haven't. I do wonder if QC has dropped as they have tried to keep up with demand.

I'll put it to Canon that this lens is capable of results much better than I am getting an see what they say.

Thanks again.

SteveinLouisville
SteveinLouisville Senior Member • Posts: 1,214
Re: Maybe it's your copy
1

Peak freak wrote:

SteveinLouisville wrote:

gimp_dad wrote:

Peak freak wrote:

gimp_dad wrote:

This was processed through LR. Color fidelity V2 Landscape defaults. Highlights reduced. Standard lens correction and default sharpening (which I believe is +40 in LR with the R).

Here is a (deliberately messed up) example of the sort of problems I am getting. Focused on the left hand forest and recomposed - about 200m so infinity focus at 37mm. Processed in Canon DPP with DLO and sharpening for best case result (Adobe RGB so colors might be off). To be honest I find it pretty disappointing (the center quality is good) and don't really understand how some people seem OK with this type of result.

Thanks again.

It's a lot easier to debug the equipment part of this issue with more constrained depth of field (maybe harder to find in such a naturally beautiful country like yours :-)).

Not sure if this helps, but here is the result I got today shooting at 35mm with the RF 24-105 f4.0L. Two shots, one at f4.0 and one at f8.0. This is the Art Deco terminal building of our local general aviation airport, less than 2 miles from my house. Both photos were taken from the same spot, about 122 feet (38m) from the building. the focus point was on the Le Relais sign. I don't see any softness on the left side at all. Or anywhere, for that matter.

Opened in DPP4 and an auto gamma adjustment done. That's all.

F4.0

F8.0

Thank you for these. My query hasn't been a waste of time!

These are great, I even find it exciting to realise just how good this lens can be. My original thoughts were that this lens is quite large and heavy for a mirrorless zoom, so Canon shouldn't have skimped on IQ - and they haven't. I do wonder if QC has dropped as they have tried to keep up with demand.

I'll put it to Canon that this lens is capable of results much better than I am getting an see what they say.

Thanks again.

You're welcome! Glad it helped. Weird you would get 3 bad ones in a row. Exact same lens, from the same factory, as the one they sell in the US, and all over world for that matter. Let us know how it works out.

 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
Thomas A Anderson Senior Member • Posts: 1,018
I think it's time to go take pictures.

Peak freak wrote:

I have had considerable experience with Canon L lenses, I have read Rogers articles and so-on, but In think I am a difficult customer when it comes to lenses because they always (well, often) seem to have performance that doesn't meet my expectations.

So, for various reasons I am onto my third copy of the RF 24-105/4, but the first that has had 'real world' use. After cataloguing my first batch of maybe a 1000 images It meets my expectations and performs well - except at about 35mm.

In short, there is always some kind of performance drop off at 30- 40mm, mostly on the left (although centering generally seems good).

This example (IMO) is pretty bad, but the sort of thing that I see happening. Check out the left hand tree trunk.

Adobe defaults, sharpening 25. What do you guys think?

Looks like your lens is fine.  As your focal length changes your aperture sweet spot will change as well, but I don't see any problems here.  What's the issue?

 Thomas A Anderson's gear list:Thomas A Anderson's gear list
Canon EOS R
buellom Contributing Member • Posts: 703
Re: RF24-105/4 performance
2

If you want prime lens IQ, use a prime lens. (Or the 28-70/2 maybe.)

That said, your photo looks a little soft in general, softer than I would expect, given that I have the RF24-105 and I think it's very good. I was never happy with my EF24-105. Then I dropped it, the inner tube broke, Canon repaired it and tuned it for me to my camera. From this moment on it was really good.

-- hide signature --

********************
www.freude-am-licht.de
********************

OP Peak freak Contributing Member • Posts: 931
Re: I think it's time to go take pictures.
1

Thomas A Anderson wrote:

Peak freak wrote:

I have had considerable experience with Canon L lenses, I have read Rogers articles and so-on, but In think I am a difficult customer when it comes to lenses because they always (well, often) seem to have performance that doesn't meet my expectations.

So, for various reasons I am onto my third copy of the RF 24-105/4, but the first that has had 'real world' use. After cataloguing my first batch of maybe a 1000 images It meets my expectations and performs well - except at about 35mm.

In short, there is always some kind of performance drop off at 30- 40mm, mostly on the left (although centering generally seems good).

This example (IMO) is pretty bad, but the sort of thing that I see happening. Check out the left hand tree trunk.

Adobe defaults, sharpening 25. What do you guys think?

Looks like your lens is fine. As your focal length changes your aperture sweet spot will change as well, but I don't see any problems here. What's the issue?

Firstly, this is just a typical example of image softness I have seen (around 35mm F/L) when reviewing recent shots - 'real world' shots.

I am disappointed with the softness on the left, particularly the left hand tree trunk. Please don't get too hung up on the technical side as this is just one example of a trend I see under a range of conditions with the 35mm F/L being the common denominator.

Compare it o the images above that Steve and Gimp Dad have kindly contributed. They are not an exact comparison but illustrate excellent edge to edge sharpness whereas mine does not. If you are fine with what you see in my image(s), that's cool, but surely you can recognise the significant differences in sharpness with other examples.

OP Peak freak Contributing Member • Posts: 931
Re: RF24-105/4 performance
1

buellom wrote:

If you want prime lens IQ, use a prime lens. (Or the 28-70/2 maybe.)

That said, your photo looks a little soft in general, softer than I would expect, given that I have the RF24-105 and I think it's very good. I was never happy with my EF24-105. Then I dropped it, the inner tube broke, Canon repaired it and tuned it for me to my camera. From this moment on it was really good.

Thanks but not necessary. Examples from other posters clearly illustrate that this lens is capable of producing excellent results that more than meet my demands.

Keep in mind the tree example has minimum sharpening, but even when sharpened things don't look great.

I have an EF 24-105 Mk1 that, in short, produces better results at 35mm on my EOS R than the RF.

OP Peak freak Contributing Member • Posts: 931
Re: Maybe it's your copy

SteveinLouisville wrote:

F4.0

F8.0

Thank you for these. My query hasn't been a waste of time!

These are great, I even find it exciting to realise just how good this lens can be. My original thoughts were that this lens is quite large and heavy for a mirrorless zoom, so Canon shouldn't have skimped on IQ - and they haven't. I do wonder if QC has dropped as they have tried to keep up with demand.

I'll put it to Canon that this lens is capable of results much better than I am getting an see what they say.

Thanks again.

You're welcome! Glad it helped. Weird you would get 3 bad ones in a row. Exact same lens, from the same factory, as the one they sell in the US, and all over world for that matter. Let us know how it works out.

Yeah, three lenses. It's a long story but the reality now is that I simply think my current lens should be better. [I contacted the seller who was very helpful, next step Canon. Fortunately I am not in a rush to use it].

SteveinLouisville
SteveinLouisville Senior Member • Posts: 1,214
Re: RF24-105/4 performance

Peak freak wrote:

buellom wrote:

If you want prime lens IQ, use a prime lens. (Or the 28-70/2 maybe.)

That said, your photo looks a little soft in general, softer than I would expect, given that I have the RF24-105 and I think it's very good. I was never happy with my EF24-105. Then I dropped it, the inner tube broke, Canon repaired it and tuned it for me to my camera. From this moment on it was really good.

Thanks but not necessary. Examples from other posters clearly illustrate that this lens is capable of producing excellent results that more than meet my demands.

Keep in mind the tree example has minimum sharpening, but even when sharpened things don't look great.

I have an EF 24-105 Mk1 that, in short, produces better results at 35mm on my EOS R than the RF.

Perhaps redundant but two I shot at a local park today, at f4 and f8.  Focus point was the gap in the middle (where a tornado went through the park in 1974).  They look pretty good to me!

f4

f8

 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads