Great cheap lens :)

This lens was a nice surprise.  Its very sharp but slow at the long end.  I use it on a R6 which has awesome high ISO performance.  I have never been a fan of the 24-105 range but this with its small size weight its a nice walk about lens.

davel33 wrote:

This lens was a nice surprise. Its very sharp but slow at the long end. I use it on a R6 which has awesome high ISO performance. I have never been a fan of the 24-105 range but this with its small size weight its a nice walk about lens.

I agree.

On a whim (I need help...) I got one refurb'd for a stupid-cheap price, and it's really impressed me. If this is the default kit lens boy, have they gotten better over time. A nice hiking lens, small and light and a useful range.

And for the IR shooters out there no inner IR LED, so it can be used at slow shutter speeds. Yay for that.

Canon's L lenses have always been good, of course. But where they've really stepped it up is in their lower cost, non L options. Great bang for the buck, especially since the slowness of the lens itself isn't as much of an impediment on newer bodies.

I purchased mine refurb from canon for $119. I also have the RF L version and at some focal lengths, the cheaper version is equally sharp across-the-board. It may be because mine was refurbished & that it was reset and calibrated properly from the factory.

I'm also using it on the lowly RP, which has fewer megapixels than some of the R series cameras. So I may be less sensitive to design discrepancies then larger mp cameras. I actually use it a lot more than I use the F4 version. It's smaller and lighter, and I don't dare say disposable, but if I'm concerned about where I'm going I will put this on instead of the L version. There are some points where the bokeh is kind of sloppy compared to the f4 L, though.

I'm actually much more impressed with this lens than I am the 50f1.8 ( granted I got that for $79, so I can't complain too much....), which seems to have a slightly smeary rendering.

"It has one annoying fault, which is the lack of an AF/MF switch, and while the R7 and R10 have a switch on the body, the R5 and R6 don't"

It sort of does,  You can use the focus/control switch on the lens.  The problem is you lose the control function

Thanks for the review on this.

Have a trip coming up shortly where carrying all my gear is not practical. Decided to bring R6, 14-35 f/4, 50 f/1.8, 430EX flash.

However was worried about missing out on 50mm and beyond and didn't really want to include my RF 24-105L.

Found a used copy and looking forward to trying it out. The tests on Optical Limits show that it is not not bad lens at all 40mm and beyond.

I had one for a very short while but replaced it with RF 24-240 so didn't get the chance put it to any meaningful use.

How is the corner sharpness at 24mm? I’ve been eying this lens to get for my RP as a cheap light weight travel landscape option.

an_also wrote:

How is the corner sharpness at 24mm? I’ve been eying this lens to get for my RP as a cheap light weight travel landscape option.

Corners are good enough for most purposes at 24mm f5.6 and a little better at f8.  It is not far off the L version for IQ, and I’m mostly shooting at f8 anyway.  My RP and STM lens (880g) are coming skiing next week - I wouldn’t take the R5 + L (1433g)  !!

It seems that the image quality on these lenses vary wildly. As I mentioned above my copy is very good pretty much across-the-board. I have no issues shooting wide open at 24, although I'm not usually concerned about my corners at that point. I'm not a pixel peeper but if you are, it might bother you a little bit. If you stop down to about F7.1 you should be pretty good at 24. Let's just say it's not quite as sharp as the L at 24 ( Although my L is better, it isn't particularly good there either).

Again, you're looking at $400, versus $1300. Or in my case, I got it for 119 refurb.

It's a relatively compact system, but if I really need to go small I'll still pack my M43 gear and pro glass.

There are benefits and drawbacks to both systems.

Wingsfan wrote:

It seems that the image quality on these lenses vary wildly. As I mentioned above my copy is very good pretty much across-the-board. I have no issues shooting wide open at 24, although I'm not usually concerned about my corners at that point. I'm not a pixel peeper but if you are, it might bother you a little bit. If you stop down to about F7.1 you should be pretty good at 24. Let's just say it's not quite as sharp as the L at 24 ( Although my L is better, it isn't particularly good there either).

Again, you're looking at $400, versus $1300. Or in my case, I got it for 119 refurb.

It's a relatively compact system, but if I really need to go small I'll still pack my M43 gear and pro glass.

There are benefits and drawbacks to both systems.

Thanks for the reply. I'm not a really a pixel peeper but it's still nice to have a lens that doesn't look horrible in the corners before you even zoom in to 100%. And this lens sounds like it will be ok in that aspect.

I just ordered this lens in the "Ugly" rated one from KEH for $91. It was cheap enough that if it turns out to be a decent copy, its pretty good for the price.

David Yule wrote:

My copy isn't great between 24mm and 26mm, the corners seem to be "stretched" in-camera for jpegs and for RAWs by Lightroom/DPP. There is a theory the image circle doesn't quite cover the sensor around at around 24mm.

Beyond 26mm the lens is good. Sharpness isn't much behind the 24-105F4L.

I do use the lens quite a bit when I want to travel light.

Thanks.

drsnoopy wrote:

an_also wrote:

How is the corner sharpness at 24mm? I’ve been eying this lens to get for my RP as a cheap light weight travel landscape option.

Corners are good enough for most purposes at 24mm f5.6 and a little better at f8. It is not far off the L version for IQ, and I’m mostly shooting at f8 anyway. My RP and STM lens (880g) are coming skiing next week - I wouldn’t take the R5 + L (1433g) !!

Thanks. The weight savings is the main reason I'm intrigued by this lens.

davel33 wrote:

This lens was a nice surprise. Its very sharp but slow at the long end. I use it on a R6 which has awesome high ISO performance. I have never been a fan of the 24-105 range but this with its small size weight its a nice walk about lens.

I'm wondering how it compares to the Sony FE 28-60mm at f/7.1 or f/8.0. The Canon will perform better at 61-105mm obviously, however, the Sony is definitely more compact in traveling position. The Canon is 395g whereas the Sony is 167g.

The 24-27 of the Canon isn't that much of an advantage to me, as it might be better IQ wise anyway to bring a wide angle for these focal lengths, and I don't like the stretched corners of anything wider than 28mm so much.

An f/2.8  24-70mm can make me wishing for a bit more on the long end, but when the max aperture isn't suitable for portraits 60mm might work as well. I definitely don't need anything over 80mm in a standard zoom.

I'll skip explaining why, but I've ended up with all three: the 24-70L, 24-105L, and 24-105 STM.

At age 69, I use the 24-70 when I'm not carrying it very far from home or car and want best quality. This for me is 90% of the time, and I always have the RF 70-200 2.8 if I need longer reach.

I use the 24-105L only when I need to travel lighter with one lens (where the extra reach is handy, even with the R5's cropping ability).

The 24-105 STM though, is my casual ultra-light kit when I'm walking and carrying it for long periods. It's very fun to shoot with.

FWIW, speaking for the IQ and sharpness of my copies, I'd rate the 24-70 a 10, the 24-105L a 9, and the STM a 7.5