Awesome lens for the money

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.

Wanted to add I now use it on the R body.  Very nice lite weight combo

thedestoyer wrote:

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.

Wanted to add I now use it on the R body. Very nice lite weight combo

Thanks for the heads up on this little lens!

It is surprisingly good on my RP and R5. As an added bonus it performs really well on my APS-C R10, if anything it is sharper than my RF-S 18-150.

Agree it's a great value especially if purchased from Canon Refurbished Lenses.

One of the first RF lenses I bought after getting the EOS R.

For me the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM with the EF/ RF adapter was too front heavy.

Bought the Canon Refurbished RF 24-105mm F4.0-7.1 IS STM for $249.

Jon

I've found mine only slightly less sharp than the RF24-105F4 L version I also have. The L is a better lens, but the differences are irrelevant in most of my photography. I'm not pixel peeping other than when I first got the lenses, to test the differences between the two.

I'm very impressed with this lens, and use it for casual walk-around photography.  It's too slow at the long end to use indoors, but even the L version isn't necessarily fast for indoor use either.

The only real issue I've noticed is a little more purple fringing, and sometimes the bokeh ( what little there is as you zoom in) Is a bit sloppy compared to the L version. But really if I had never done these side-by-side comparisons when I first got both lenses, I probably would not have noticed the latter issue.

Another reason why I am so impressed with this lens is that I got it for $119 bucks on sale refurbished through Canon. For the money, I am far more impressed with the results from this lens than I am with the L.

I am looking for a lighter, walkaround alternative to my heavy rf 24-105 f4…the new 24-50 would save me 3 cm in length and about 100g in weight compared to this lens, at the cost of losing 55mm in reach…does not seem a worthwhile sacrifice…as redundant as it is I might just add the lighter 24-105 to my kit for daytime photography.
Or…do the right thing: listen to my wife, control my GAS and just use my M kit for that.

Fjzk wrote:

I am looking for a lighter, walkaround alternative to my heavy rf 24-105 f4…the new 24-50 would save me 3 cm in length and about 100g in weight compared to this lens, at the cost of losing 55mm in reach…does not seem a worthwhile sacrifice…as redundant as it is I might just add the lighter 24-105 to my kit for daytime photography.
Or…do the right thing: listen to my wife, control my GAS and just use my M kit for that.

I don’t know where you get your figures from, but the new RF24-50 weighs just 220g, and the RF24-105/4 L weighs 695g, a considerable saving of 475g.  Even if you mean the 24-105 f4-7.1 STM, that is 395g, so a saving of 175g.  As to whether it would work for you, that’s a personal decision!

drsnoopy wrote:

Fjzk wrote:

I am looking for a lighter, walkaround alternative to my heavy rf 24-105 f4…the new 24-50 would save me 3 cm in length and about 100g in weight compared to this lens, at the cost of losing 55mm in reach…does not seem a worthwhile sacrifice…as redundant as it is I might just add the lighter 24-105 to my kit for daytime photography.
Or…do the right thing: listen to my wife, control my GAS and just use my M kit for that.

I don’t know where you get your figures from, but the new RF24-50 weighs just 220g, and the RF24-105/4 L weighs 695g, a considerable saving of 475g. Even if you mean the 24-105 f4-7.1 STM, that is 395g, so a saving of 175g. As to whether it would work for you, that’s a personal decision!

I was referring to the lighter, STM lens. Was checking the info in ‘camera decision’, they have the 24-50 at 270g but, you are right, it is much less than that indeed (210g in Canon Europe website). Even so I think the saving, for my use cases, does not justify the loss in reach.
In fact, in the future, I envision having 2 photography kits only: a pocketable one (smartphone or rx100 or GR) and a lighter full frame kit, in which case this 24-105 STM plus a set of primes (16, 24 and 50 1.8) would be all I need as a hobbyist with a couple of herniated discs 😊.

I just sold my Sigma 24-105 f4. Too heavy.  I do like the focal length.  How slow do you find it on the long end. Does the higher iso capabilities and stabilization make up for being a stop darker.

klassenl wrote:

I just sold my Sigma 24-105 f4. Too heavy. I do like the focal length. How slow do you find it on the long end. Does the higher iso capabilities and stabilization make up for being a stop darker.

Good question and yes it does

Scott Stoness wrote:

I like the rf 24-105 but I found once some strange colours intruding into my picture dead centre with side sunrise light. Luckily I took lots of shots otherwise I would have been disappointed after a very long walk I the dark. So good lens but look out for the flare.

46mm f11 iso 100

i-n5pLm9C-X5.jpg

Very nice shot.

Assuming image posted is not a "example" of the "... some strange colours intruding into my picture dead centre with side sunrise light..." .  Been interesting to see such an image.

Somewhat interesting using the 24-105mm STM on a R5.

The 24-105mm STM a US$400 "Kit Lens", so not too surprising it's susceptible to lens flare in such shooting conditions.

Thanks,
Jon