OK (but borderline hateful) kit lens

(+) affordable, compact, feels nice to touch and operate, image stabilization is included (and very effective too), fast & silent focusing despite using STM, focus by wire is effective & predictable (still doesn't feel as good as full time MF tho), and includes basic RF lens capabilities like control ring, 1/8th aperture increment for video

(-) terrible wide angle image quality, the aperture stopping down too much for only 4.4x zoom level, only has one electronic ring for either control or focus, no dedicated AF/MF switch, have I said way too dark maximum aperture at the long end zoom?

One thing angers me the most is the 24-240mm superzoom "only" looses 4/3rd stops of aperture compared to this which is 5/3rd, while only (barely) zoom 5x instead of 10. Surely they could've made this only looses 1 stop of aperture if they don't cheap out too much, and leave the stupid & difficult-to-use macro thing.

When I say terrible wide angle IQ, just look at the lens correction menu, you can't turn off the lens distortion correction. So shoot RAW, open the file in Lightroom, turn the lens distortion correction off, boom, disappointment. It's almost like as if they took some elements from a 10mm fish eye lens, put it in front of this lens, and forcefully ask the camera processor to crop & stretch to "compensate". On the same note actually the RF 16mm f/2.8 and RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 has the same issue.

With all that being said, it is pretty affordable for the zoom level it offers, giving quite a big opportunity for people just came into the full frame market such as the RP itself. I somewhat think of this lens as the EF-S 18-55mm we all know and love(?) that's been the bog standard kit lens for the APS-C Canon DSLRs throughout the years. Yes the 18-55 is cheaply made and left a lot to be desired, but after some generations it makes such a perfect sense, it offers an okay zoom range (the 24-105 has even more obv), produce good enough image for the sensor, and most importantly, affordable.

I can actually see what's happening in Canon R&D after the burst of RF lenses in 2020. They pushed out a lot of non-L lenses with either a cheap and dirty development from scratch (this, the 24-240, the 16, the 100-400, 600 & 800 f/11) and see what sticks, or just copy an older design (the 35 macro, nifty fifty) that's been proven good but not much improvements. Some of the new designs are actually good, especially the tele lenses. I kinda hope this means more affordable EOS R cameras (probably even APS-C), and they're over with this cheap & dirty method.

I think the idea of working with a lens that is designed to use lens corrections as part of its final output has strong camps on both sides.

Traditionalists who want the camera to capture the scene with as close to optical perfection as possible.

Others who want an image as close to perfect as possible from an affordable, light weight lens that can do a lot.

A 24-105 has never been as small and inexpensive for full frame. Same for the 16. And a 10x zoom has never been as good through the range (for the price). The corrections conundrum make these lenses exist.

The design of this lens — and of the RF 16/2.8 and the RF 24-240/4-6.3 lenses — was based on a combination of optical and digital correction. The results are affordable lenses that would be much heavier and more expensive if the corrections were attempted in the optical domain only.

I think it's a strange base for a review to disregard half the virtues of the object one is reviewing.

IMO, the reviewer has over-emphasized linear distortion as their only criteria for image/lens quality.

I have noticed with all the RF lenses compared to older EF lenses that generally have very good contrast even into the corners.  It suggests that they are doing a good job of getting the whole spectrum of visible light relative well in focus. Simply put, they sacrifice linear distortion to get the focus across the visible spectrum reasonably well.

You can digitally correct for distortion, albeit with a loss in resolution, but you can't digitally correct for focus. Software (such as Topaz) can improve the human perception of sharpness, but that is something different.

It looks to me that Canon has chosen to assume that the lenses will be digitally corrected and optimize the lens designs based on what can be digitally corrected. Thus they seem to give on distortion and vignetting even in some of their better lenses.

julyas43 wrote:

(+) affordable, compact, feels nice to touch and operate, image stabilization is included (and very effective too), fast & silent focusing despite using STM, focus by wire is effective & predictable (still doesn't feel as good as full time MF tho), and includes basic RF lens capabilities like control ring, 1/8th aperture increment for video

(-) terrible wide angle image quality, the aperture stopping down too much for only 4.4x zoom level, only has one electronic ring for either control or focus, no dedicated AF/MF switch, have I said way too dark maximum aperture at the long end zoom?

One thing angers me the most is the 24-240mm superzoom "only" looses 4/3rd stops of aperture compared to this which is 5/3rd, while only (barely) zoom 5x instead of 10. Surely they could've made this only looses 1 stop of aperture if they don't cheap out too much, and leave the stupid & difficult-to-use macro thing.

When I say terrible wide angle IQ, just look at the lens correction menu, you can't turn off the lens distortion correction. So shoot RAW, open the file in Lightroom, turn the lens distortion correction off, boom, disappointment. It's almost like as if they took some elements from a 10mm fish eye lens, put it in front of this lens, and forcefully ask the camera processor to crop & stretch to "compensate". On the same note actually the RF 16mm f/2.8 and RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 has the same issue.

With all that being said, it is pretty affordable for the zoom level it offers, giving quite a big opportunity for people just came into the full frame market such as the RP itself. I somewhat think of this lens as the EF-S 18-55mm we all know and love(?) that's been the bog standard kit lens for the APS-C Canon DSLRs throughout the years. Yes the 18-55 is cheaply made and left a lot to be desired, but after some generations it makes such a perfect sense, it offers an okay zoom range (the 24-105 has even more obv), produce good enough image for the sensor, and most importantly, affordable.

I can actually see what's happening in Canon R&D after the burst of RF lenses in 2020. They pushed out a lot of non-L lenses with either a cheap and dirty development from scratch (this, the 24-240, the 16, the 100-400, 600 & 800 f/11) and see what sticks, or just copy an older design (the 35 macro, nifty fifty) that's been proven good but not much improvements. Some of the new designs are actually good, especially the tele lenses. I kinda hope this means more affordable EOS R cameras (probably even APS-C), and they're over with this cheap & dirty method.

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

tkbslc wrote:

drsnoopy wrote:

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

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

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

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

Screen-shots from YOUR link:

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

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

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

OOC JPG; downside to 3200 pixels width

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon

tkbslc wrote:

Jon_T wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

drsnoopy wrote:

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

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

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

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

Screen-shots from YOUR link:

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

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

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

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

You're  still all TALK and no WALK.

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

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

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

OOC JPG; downside to 3200 pixels width

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon

Jon_T wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

Jon_T wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

drsnoopy wrote:

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

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

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

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

Screen-shots from YOUR link:

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

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

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

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

You're still all TALK and no WALK.

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

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

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

OOC JPG; downside to 3200 pixels width

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon

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

I know why.

I am very grateful that Canon chose to mfg and sell the RF24-105stm.... I highly value light/small gear, and I find that the compromises with lens are acceptable to me in most cases. I own and enjoy the RF35/1.8, the EF40/2.8, the RF50/1.8, and prefer one of these smaller primes (also the EF85/1.8), which provide very nice images. Still, there are times when I'll want a wider range of focus lengths, and enjoy versatility of using the 24-105 with its great stabilization, and nice close focus ability, and longer focus lengths. There are many times that I just don't want to change lenses, and the 24-105 frequently suits.

From 28mm upward it does a pretty good job. When I need to use 24mm I use the jpg image as a basis to edit with its built-in lens corrections which looks ok, or if I need the raw image for enhanced highlight/shadow work, or improved white balance work, I start in DPP since I don't use Photoshop or DXO. I use Affinity for a lot of my editing, and it does not have a profile for the RF24-105stm.

I actually passed on the RF24-105L just due to the weight difference. We all have varying criteria for how we enjoy our craft. I previously owned the 6D with EF24-105L and gifted that setup to a relative because I didn't enjoy the heftier gear.

I thought about getting this lens. I think it was like $249 refurb recently and it was so cheap I thought it might be good to have one all-purpose lens. In the end, I decided against it. I think at the price, I expect a lot of compromises and I don't really need it anyway. But it'd make for a nice video lens in good light.

Klaus dk wrote:

The design of this lens — and of the RF 16/2.8 and the RF 24-240/4-6.3 lenses — was based on a combination of optical and digital correction. The results are affordable lenses that would be much heavier and more expensive if the corrections were attempted in the optical domain only.

I think it's a strange base for a review to disregard half the virtues of the object one is reviewing.

+1 The OP might just as well just hate himself for this purchase, because all of the "properties" of this lens were well known and documented before he even purchased it!

It's obvious that what the OP really wants is all of the virtues of the RF 24-105 f/4L at the STM's price!

R2