DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Disappointing

Started 10 months ago | User reviews
Douwe385 New Member • Posts: 1
Disappointing
4

I have been using my 13 years old EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM with adapter on my R6. But it is rather bulky (long) specially when gravity moves it to the 105 position, there is no lock on it. A technical issue is that the stabilizer motor is active most of the time when the camera is switched on.

So I bought the RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM. Looks beautiful. But then I did a comparison with the old EF lens. First just some shots, then a more serious compare on a tripod with a newspaper on the wall. There is no doubt, at 50 mm the old EF lens is considerable sharper on the edges than the new RF. I even did not compare it at other focal ranges, I returned the lens, money back. The cost is not worth the upgrade (downgrade).

Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM
Zoom lens • Canon RF
Announced: Sep 5, 2018
Douwe385's score
2.5
Average community score
4.6
Canon EOS R6 Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Alastair Norcross
Alastair Norcross Veteran Member • Posts: 9,874
Re: Disappointing
12

That's weird. You either got a bad copy or did something strange in your testing. I had the original for nine years, and have had the RF version for eighteen months. The RF version is better in every respect. Every other person I've read who has compared them says the same. You are the only person who disagrees. If I were you, I'd try another copy. It's astronomically unlikely that everyone else is wrong and you are right.

-- hide signature --

“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 Alastair Norcross's gear list:Alastair Norcross's gear list
Canon G7 X II Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R7 Canon EOS R6 Mark II Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +24 more
Lost99999 Regular Member • Posts: 336
Re: Disappointing
6

Agree, i had both as well. RF is superior to EF.

 Lost99999's gear list:Lost99999's gear list
Canon EOS RP Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM
EOSSpeedLite Contributing Member • Posts: 640
Something is Wrong...
4

Either your testing is flawed, or you got a bad copy of the RF 24-105L f4. And you will not find even 1 professional review that would agree with your findings.

The truth is, and rating from bad to best:

  1. EF 24-105L f4 Mark I
  2. EF 24-105L f4 Mark II
  3. RF 24-105L f4

You will not find a better 24-105 zoom than the RF model.

-- hide signature --

The best photographers talk about pictures & techniques. Posers & Fanboys talk about brands.

 EOSSpeedLite's gear list:EOSSpeedLite's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Canon Extender EF 2x III Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II +12 more
dmanthree
dmanthree Forum Pro • Posts: 10,302
Re: Disappointing
2

Alastair Norcross wrote:

That's weird. You either got a bad copy or did something strange in your testing. I had the original for nine years, and have had the RF version for eighteen months. The RF version is better in every respect. Every other person I've read who has compared them says the same. You are the only person who disagrees. If I were you, I'd try another copy. It's astronomically unlikely that everyone else is wrong and you are right.

My experience is the same. Not sure what went wrong in his testing.

-- hide signature --

---on the cutting edge---

Mike Arledge Senior Member • Posts: 2,465
Re: Disappointing
8

dmanthree wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

That's weird. You either got a bad copy or did something strange in your testing. I had the original for nine years, and have had the RF version for eighteen months. The RF version is better in every respect. Every other person I've read who has compared them says the same. You are the only person who disagrees. If I were you, I'd try another copy. It's astronomically unlikely that everyone else is wrong and you are right.

My experience is the same. Not sure what went wrong in his testing.

Always suspicious of a first post review that goes against established perspective… just saying.

 Mike Arledge's gear list:Mike Arledge's gear list
Nikon Z5 Nikon Z fc Sony a7 IV Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Sigma 28mm F1.4 DG HSM +5 more
KiloHotelphoto Contributing Member • Posts: 770
Re: Disappointing
1

I remember seeing other post that people were not happy with their RF 24-105 F4 compared to older EF models.

I have one and don't use it often but when I have I found it to be a very good lens and I'm glad I got it. I don't take shots of test charts and examine every pixel I just use real world shooting.

 KiloHotelphoto's gear list:KiloHotelphoto's gear list
Canon RF 600mm F4L Canon EOS R5 Canon EOS R3 Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM +4 more
Higgins2002
Higgins2002 Contributing Member • Posts: 913
Re: Disappointing
2
  1. KiloHotelphoto wrote:

I remember seeing other post that people were not happy with their RF 24-105 F4 compared to older EF models.

I have one and don't use it often but when I have I found it to be a very good lens and I'm glad I got it. I don't take shots of test charts and examine every pixel I just use real world shooting.

I got a lemon, very bad on left side … returned  it and have been waiting for a new one for a long time now.

i don’t Know if i should buy something else the 24-240 maybe good in the 50-150 mm range but 24 mm seems not so good.

Have the  R5 …

 Higgins2002's gear list:Higgins2002's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon EOS R7 Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM +2 more
Leigh A. Wax Senior Member • Posts: 1,621
Re: Disappointing
1

I had a descent performing EF, but my RF is sharper.

I wish on the RF they'd "abandoned" the Control Ring, and left some space between the the Zoom & Focus Rings, though. 

mstMuc
mstMuc Regular Member • Posts: 103
Re: Disappointing

It’s all about production variance - if you had an EF with positive deviation and got a RF with negative deviation the EF can be better.

in general RF is slightly better, but no one can buy that ‚general‘

thunder storm Forum Pro • Posts: 10,139
Re: Disappointing

Douwe385 wrote:

I have been using my 13 years old EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM with adapter on my R6. But it is rather bulky (long) specially when gravity moves it to the 105 position, there is no lock on it. A technical issue is that the stabilizer motor is active most of the time when the camera is switched on.

So I bought the RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM. Looks beautiful. But then I did a comparison with the old EF lens. First just some shots, then a more serious compare on a tripod with a newspaper on the wall. There is no doubt, at 50 mm the old EF lens is considerable sharper on the edges than the new RF. I even did not compare it at other focal ranges, I returned the lens, money back. The cost is not worth the upgrade (downgrade).

You must have had a lemon. I would give it another try.

-- hide signature --

45 is more than enough, but 500.000 isn't

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Sony a7 IV Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +24 more
dmanthree
dmanthree Forum Pro • Posts: 10,302
Re: Disappointing

thunder storm wrote:

Douwe385 wrote:

I have been using my 13 years old EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM with adapter on my R6. But it is rather bulky (long) specially when gravity moves it to the 105 position, there is no lock on it. A technical issue is that the stabilizer motor is active most of the time when the camera is switched on.

So I bought the RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM. Looks beautiful. But then I did a comparison with the old EF lens. First just some shots, then a more serious compare on a tripod with a newspaper on the wall. There is no doubt, at 50 mm the old EF lens is considerable sharper on the edges than the new RF. I even did not compare it at other focal ranges, I returned the lens, money back. The cost is not worth the upgrade (downgrade).

You must have had a lemon. I would give it another try.

New user, first time poster, hmmm...

-- hide signature --

---on the cutting edge---

Tristimulus Veteran Member • Posts: 9,998
Re: Disappointing

dmanthree wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Douwe385 wrote:

I have been using my 13 years old EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM with adapter on my R6. But it is rather bulky (long) specially when gravity moves it to the 105 position, there is no lock on it. A technical issue is that the stabilizer motor is active most of the time when the camera is switched on.

So I bought the RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM. Looks beautiful. But then I did a comparison with the old EF lens. First just some shots, then a more serious compare on a tripod with a newspaper on the wall. There is no doubt, at 50 mm the old EF lens is considerable sharper on the edges than the new RF. I even did not compare it at other focal ranges, I returned the lens, money back. The cost is not worth the upgrade (downgrade).

You must have had a lemon. I would give it another try.

New user, first time poster, hmmm...

New lens and then suddenly a second time poster. Things can improve...

Testing a zoom lens at close distance and at one focal lenght setting and concluding that the lens is bad may confirm that there are more bad tests than bad lenses out there.

bigshledge Contributing Member • Posts: 596
Re: Something is Wrong...

EOSSpeedLite wrote:

Either your testing is flawed, or you got a bad copy of the RF 24-105L f4. And you will not find even 1 professional review that would agree with your findings.

The truth is, and rating from bad to best:

  1. EF 24-105L f4 Mark I
  2. EF 24-105L f4 Mark II
  3. RF 24-105L f4

You will not find a better 24-105 zoom than the RF model.

Don't be too sure about that, multiple reviews have pointed out it's optically close to the EF versions. Different story if comparing the EF and RF 24-70s, but the RF 24-105mm is definitely one of the weaker RF lenses.

Likely OP has a bad copy, a good copy isn't going to be massively different to their previous EF.

 bigshledge's gear list:bigshledge's gear list
Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Canon RF 28-70mm F2L USM +1 more
EOSSpeedLite Contributing Member • Posts: 640
Re: Something is Wrong...

bigshledge wrote:

EOSSpeedLite wrote:

Either your testing is flawed, or you got a bad copy of the RF 24-105L f4. And you will not find even 1 professional review that would agree with your findings.

The truth is, and rating from bad to best:

  1. EF 24-105L f4 Mark I
  2. EF 24-105L f4 Mark II
  3. RF 24-105L f4

You will not find a better 24-105 zoom than the RF model.

Don't be too sure about that, multiple reviews have pointed out it's optically close to the EF versions. Different story if comparing the EF and RF 24-70s, but the RF 24-105mm is definitely one of the weaker RF lenses.

Likely OP has a bad copy, a good copy isn't going to be massively different to their previous EF.

I've had all three, and I found that my copy is noticeably better than the EF's, especially the EF Mark I.

The RF version gets hit on far more than it deserves.  I just used my in Maui, for several hundred captures, and it performed fantastically...and this coming from an owner of the RF 28-70L f2, and both RF f1.2 primes.

-- hide signature --

The best photographers talk about pictures & techniques. Posers & Fanboys talk about brands.

 EOSSpeedLite's gear list:EOSSpeedLite's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Canon Extender EF 2x III Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II +12 more
bigshledge Contributing Member • Posts: 596
Re: Something is Wrong...

EOSSpeedLite wrote:

bigshledge wrote:

EOSSpeedLite wrote:

Either your testing is flawed, or you got a bad copy of the RF 24-105L f4. And you will not find even 1 professional review that would agree with your findings.

The truth is, and rating from bad to best:

  1. EF 24-105L f4 Mark I
  2. EF 24-105L f4 Mark II
  3. RF 24-105L f4

You will not find a better 24-105 zoom than the RF model.

Don't be too sure about that, multiple reviews have pointed out it's optically close to the EF versions. Different story if comparing the EF and RF 24-70s, but the RF 24-105mm is definitely one of the weaker RF lenses.

Likely OP has a bad copy, a good copy isn't going to be massively different to their previous EF.

I've had all three, and I found that my copy is noticeably better than the EF's, especially the EF Mark I.

The RF version gets hit on far more than it deserves. I just used my in Maui, for several hundred captures, and it performed fantastically...and this coming from an owner of the RF 28-70L f2, and both RF f1.2 primes.

I'll trust the reviews on this one.

I've also tried all 3 versions myself, they were all quite similar. Sharp, but the RF was nothing overly groundbreaking in comparison. Any optical improvement was minute at best. Ended up getting a Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 instead.

I seen a huge jump in quality when I got my RF 28-70mm.

 bigshledge's gear list:bigshledge's gear list
Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Canon RF 28-70mm F2L USM +1 more
EOSSpeedLite Contributing Member • Posts: 640
Re: Something is Wrong...

bigshledge wrote:

EOSSpeedLite wrote:

bigshledge wrote:

EOSSpeedLite wrote:

Either your testing is flawed, or you got a bad copy of the RF 24-105L f4. And you will not find even 1 professional review that would agree with your findings.

The truth is, and rating from bad to best:

  1. EF 24-105L f4 Mark I
  2. EF 24-105L f4 Mark II
  3. RF 24-105L f4

You will not find a better 24-105 zoom than the RF model.

Don't be too sure about that, multiple reviews have pointed out it's optically close to the EF versions. Different story if comparing the EF and RF 24-70s, but the RF 24-105mm is definitely one of the weaker RF lenses.

Likely OP has a bad copy, a good copy isn't going to be massively different to their previous EF.

I've had all three, and I found that my copy is noticeably better than the EF's, especially the EF Mark I.

The RF version gets hit on far more than it deserves. I just used my in Maui, for several hundred captures, and it performed fantastically...and this coming from an owner of the RF 28-70L f2, and both RF f1.2 primes.

I'll trust the reviews on this one.

I've also tried all 3 versions myself, they were all quite similar. Sharp, but the RF was nothing overly groundbreaking in comparison. Any optical improvement was minute at best. Ended up getting a Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 instead.

I seen a huge jump in quality when I got my RF 28-70mm.

I don't understand you...all the major reviews claim the RF version is the best of the three, even if that difference is not great when comparing the Rf to the EF Mark II.  This mirrors my own experiences.

Not sure why you are being argumentative....LOL

-- hide signature --

The best photographers talk about pictures & techniques. Posers & Fanboys talk about brands.

 EOSSpeedLite's gear list:EOSSpeedLite's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Canon Extender EF 2x III Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II +12 more
gh172 Forum Member • Posts: 70
Re: Something is Wrong...

I think there are definitely good and bad copies. I had a RF 35mm f1.8 IS which received great reviews, yet my copy was soft and had poor contrast so I ended up selling it. I have the RF 24-105mm and fortunately it's a good copy and has proven to be an excellent lens for me. I also owned the previous EF version and have found a noticeable improvement in image quality and sharpness with the RF. I can definitely understand your reluctance to buy another one though, as I wouldn't be willing to buy another 35mm RF either.

maarensv
maarensv Senior Member • Posts: 1,106
Re: Something is Wrong...

bigshledge wrote:

EOSSpeedLite wrote:

bigshledge wrote:

EOSSpeedLite wrote:

Either your testing is flawed, or you got a bad copy of the RF 24-105L f4. And you will not find even 1 professional review that would agree with your findings.

The truth is, and rating from bad to best:

You will not find a better 24-105 zoom than the RF model.

Don't be too sure about that, multiple reviews have pointed out it's optically close to the EF versions. Different story if comparing the EF and RF 24-70s, but the RF 24-105mm is definitely one of the weaker RF lenses.

Likely OP has a bad copy, a good copy isn't going to be massively different to their previous EF.

I've had all three, and I found that my copy is noticeably better than the EF's, especially the EF Mark I.

The RF version gets hit on far more than it deserves. I just used my in Maui, for several hundred captures, and it performed fantastically...and this coming from an owner of the RF 28-70L f2, and both RF f1.2 primes.

I'll trust the reviews on this one.

I've also tried all 3 versions myself, they were all quite similar. Sharp, but the RF was nothing overly groundbreaking in comparison. Any optical improvement was minute at best. Ended up getting a Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 instead.

I seen a huge jump in quality when I got my RF 28-70mm.

I've used all plus the Sigma 24-105 f/4, Canon 24-105 STM and Sony FE 24-105 f/4.

Of those the Canon RF and Sony FE were for sure the best performing.

  1. EF 24-105L f4 Mark I and 24-105 STM
  2. Sigma 24-105 f4
  3. EF 24-105L f4 Mark II
  4. RF 24-105L f4 and Sony 24-105 f4

The STM being better at 24mm than the Mark I and worse at 70mm and up. Used this lens as an intermediate when my Mark I got broke.

The Sigma was a bit of a disappointment, as I had hoped it would be clearly better than the Mark I, but it wasn't. So only got that lens for a brief period and kept the Mark I.

The Sony was on par with the RF, but pretty unusefull in AF-S mode as it had a huge backfocus issue in that mode (a known but often ignored issue). In AF-C mode it was much better strangly enough. Used it on a A7RIII, before fully returning to Canon.

 maarensv's gear list:maarensv's gear list
Canon 6D Mark II Canon EOS R Olympus E-M5 III Canon EOS R7 Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM +22 more
EOSSpeedLite Contributing Member • Posts: 640
Your copy was bad-Give the RF 35mm f1.8 another chance...

gh172 wrote:

I think there are definitely good and bad copies. I had a RF 35mm f1.8 IS which received great reviews, yet my copy was soft and had poor contrast so I ended up selling it. I have the RF 24-105mm and fortunately it's a good copy and has proven to be an excellent lens for me. I also owned the previous EF version and have found a noticeable improvement in image quality and sharpness with the RF. I can definitely understand your reluctance to buy another one though, as I wouldn't be willing to buy another 35mm RF either.

You must've gotten a bad copy...mine is razor-sharp at f1.8 and wide open it provides good contrast, punchy Canon colors too:

-- hide signature --

The best photographers talk about pictures & techniques. Posers & Fanboys talk about brands.

 EOSSpeedLite's gear list:EOSSpeedLite's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Canon Extender EF 2x III Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II +12 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads