I bought one refurbished off Canon for $319.00 (comes with 1-yr warranty). It's super sharp and focuses fast and silently compared to my RF 35 1.8 (which uses Gear type STM to focus as opposed to the Lead-screw type STM).
I have this lens and I just can't believe how good it is, I love it. Such great value too! Sure it isn't the fastest, but in the conditions I use it I always stop around those apertures anyway, so it's a none issue for me. Important to be said: it's a brilliant lens for video too thanks to the IS, and the lens corrections still apply in that mode whereas they don't with non-RF lenses.
@@redpillnibbler4423 I have a Canon RP. Multiple exposures on this camera only has additive and average, no dark or light, so I don't use it much. But if I recall well it only works with prime lenses.
For a long time, I didn't believe your reviews because you said every lens was good, but this 7.1 lens is actually really good. It is light, compact and the IS negates some of the complaints that you need to boost the ISO too much for such a slow lens. But since this is for full frame, there is still decent DOF at the long end. There is no longer any need for a crop sensor IMO. This will be the third time I clean out all my gear. First, when digital appeared. Second, when mirrorless appeared. And now, with Canon full frame mirrorless with compact zooms and primes. I personalized your settings for the R8 and this will be a perfect compliment to my Samsung Ultra for compact travel. Maybe with a small prime lens.
Pretty much every lens that's come out since 2010 has been optically super; it's not the old days anymore, Today it comes down to size and weight and handling. Thanks!
I was parroting all the internet talking points when my friend was looking into a kit with the RP and this lens - and trying to recommend him the RF 24-105 F4L. However, I immediately reversed my advice when I saw your pictures and comments. The price, weight, sharpness and macro ability make this a wonderful starter with the RP. Thanks!!
Hi Ken. Saw you on my YT homepage out of nowhere and immediately subscribed without watching any of your videos because I owe it to you after using your website countless times over the past decade whenever I needed some lens references. Wish you success here as well.
Thanks for a very useful, and in my opinion, accurate review. I have been using and analysing this lens for a few days now and I am amazed. I only bought it to keep on my new EOS R6 Mk II as a family snap lens, based on your recommendation in this video, meaning to use my EOS L lenses with an adaptor for serious work, but it is way better than that. I actually got as good, if not better results from this lens in my (admittedly subjective) tests than my 24 - 105 f4 L. Of course this is f4 all the way, but I was able to get pretty good shallow depth of field with the new lens. At this price point it is a steal.
I agree with you about the sharpness of this kit lens. It seems very sharp to me and i't's nice and light. My ef 70-200 2.8 lens (that I hardly use anymore) is 3.28 pounds!
Ken Rockwell hey Ken I love watching your reviews on cameras and lenses going back decades ago When and what made you abandon your passion for Nikon and move to Canon Kindest regards Ron
To think that they essentially gave this lens away for free during the Father's day sale... I paid 999 for my RP with it thrown in. I am used to kit lenses being landfill quality but I thought this one was great. Glad that the master himself saw it the same way.
What a great review Ken, always appreciate your content on the website, I sometimes forget there's also a video review to go with it. This told me absolutely everything I needed to know and all the thoughts I had about the other lenses over the last few weeks you covered too, thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV I think the videos are really great too! I'm watching some more now, getting back into cameras I have to re-familiarise myself and I find your stuff the most informative, so THANKS to you!
Great travel lens. 15-30mm f 4.5-6.3 IS STM 24-105mm f 4-7.1 IS STM 100-400mm f 5.6-8 IS USM And one of those RF primes: 16, 24, 28, 35, 50 or 85mm (f 1.8 - 2.8) and you have great lightweight setup.
I really enjoyed this review! Just an honest opinion and no hate. The lens isn’t perfect but for what it costs, you really can’t beat it. Im going to pick one up for my R6MKII.
I bought this lense and for the money it really can't be beat. The L lense should be better for the price difference, good grief. Thanks for a good video,Ken.
Thanks for a great review, I just bought the RP, with this lens (even though I have the EF 24-105 f4L) based on your input, and the explaining the usefulness of it having a control ring! I was thinking of just getting just the EF to R adapter.
With the better IS in these lenses, it's almost like the cameras don't know how to use it. I wish there was a way to have the camera favor a slower shutter speed before increasing iso in aperture, shutter, fv modes, etc...
there is. I always use Auto ISO and then set the slowest shutter speed inside Auto ISO to AUTO (it picks the slowest speed before it starts increasing ISO based on focal length). Once that's set, then shift that speed towards SLOWER. Done!
Love adding this for my work in sports teams. Always shooting at F8 for this work so I don't need the wide-open look as I do for the lenses for portraits. I was hoping someone would confirm this for me. Thanks.
Hey Ken, does this work on crop sensor cameras like the R50? I know your review says full frame but didn’t know if it would work on R crop sensors. Newbie here thanks.
Works great on APS-C, just that you’re buying a much bigger lens than you need. For APS-C the RF 18-150mm is much better www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/18-150mm.htm thanks!
Excellent review, in addition to analyzing objectively and without bias, I have the opportunity to improve the english language by listening to you, by the way, is your accent from CA or NY? Mr. Rockwell has excellent diction, speaks at the proper speed and I don’t need to use subtitles, thank you!
I try to keep a midwestern accent from our network TV. In USA it was discovered that that’s the accent that the greatest number of viewers will perceive as “normal” across our great land. Did you know that in the southern USA, when president Jimmy Carter was elected from Georgia, people sighed with relief that we finally had a president “without an accent!” Thanks! Where are you?
@@KenRockwellTV I am from São Paulo, Brazil, South America. I was very happy to hear Mr. Rockwell on TH-cam, in addition to reading the articles on the site. Reading and listening to a topic you like in another language is the best way to learn it. Very interesting the fact about Jimmy Carter, I didn't know about it. Thanks!
I do wonder if they will ever run that $999 for RP camera and lens deal again! Super deal! Canon, made in Japan, and lens made in Taiwan, yet sold for a low-low price. I will consider this RP camera and the Nikon Z50 which is nice APS-C with a FF mount camera.
I recently purchased the R6 and reluctantly purchased their 15-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 . I was debating to purchase the 24-105 4L in order to have something lighter for hiking , but I’m not sure if going from 900 grams with my 24-70 , to 700 grams with the 24-105 4L , is really going to feel beneficial. Buying this lens is triggering my OCD , but it just makes sense for hiking . I’m not concerned about bokeh
Get the RF 24-105 STM or RF 24-240 for packing light. Pass right by the excellent RF 24-105/4L; the STM is much much lighter. Full reviews for all these lenses are at www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/index.htm
The lens wouldn’t be an upgrade, just different. The RF 24-105 f/4L IS is a much better-made lens, but only covers half the range of a 24-240. I love the RF 24-240 for Canon, and today they’re all great lenses. They’re all just as sharp in actual use; it’s all about what you need for what you do; that’s why there are so many choices. See all my lens reviews, complete with sample image files, at kenrockwell.com Thanks!
It reminds me how the new Nikon z 24-70 F4 kit lens is indistinguishable image quality (apart from depth of field) from the the far more expensive F2.8 version
I hear Nikon are really struggling financially to the degree they might have to sell off their photo section as per Olympus. They are desperate for profit so comparative prices may be higher. Canon and others will know this so could possibly put the pressure on Nikon with great bargains like these. A good time to buy into the Canon system?
Christian Petersen maybe it’s a good time to support Nikon? The less competition in the future, the less need to develop better technology and others can push up prices No one can say that Nikon cameras and lenses are not at lease as good or overall better than any of the competitors
@@ronaldsand3000 Nikon need to make a star camera soon - as a tech company there is only so long you can be in the background. I love my D750 but its six years since that camera stood out from the crowd.
Mark Shirley there is more to Nikon than bring out revolutionary models every couple of years Ecosystem, colour science, image quality & build quality etc I assume you’re D750 still produces great photos like it did the first day you bought it All the very best
Does anyone have any information that this lens doesn’t allow multiple exposures to be used? This is a big deal to me before buy my first Canon R or R6. Any information would be appreciated.
Never heard about any limitations to multiple exposure with this or any other lens, but haven’t looked. In the USA just ask Canon at (800) OK-CANON. Thanks!
excellent review, thanks a lot. How is the comparison with the RF 24-240? I chose that one as kit lens for the RP as at 105 and even at 240 it's more open than the 24-105.
@@KenRockwellTV thanks for comment. I had the choice for 24-240 and 24-105 as kit lens. The second kit wasn't available immediately, and I wasn't sure about the 24-240. But today I'm happy I made the selection for the longer one, and had the camera immediately instead if waiting two ir three weeks. Would be happy seeing your video review of the 24-240. Read of course already your review on kenrockwell.com
Thanks for this. I am assembling lens for a new Canon R6. I am new to Canon and so I have no collection of EF lenses. I have the RF 15-35 and the RF 100-500. I am considering what to purchase next. This lens? The L version (f/4) of this lens? Maybe the RF 24-70 2.8? Or the RF 70-200 f2.8? Do you plan to post a video review of the RF 24-105 f4?
Every Canon RF lens review is in explicit detail at www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/index.htm all are optically great; your question is how much do you want to carry? The 24-105 stm is ultralight. Personally I prefer the 24-240 as it means I don’t usually have to carry my beloved 100-400L IS II. Pictures will all be the same.
@@wesleybrilhante5989 Maybe. But, for the moment, I want the reach of the 100-500 and the 70-200 does not accept extenders. So, I'm leaning toward adding the RF 24-70 to my kit and stopping there for the time being. I won't carry everything. Wildlife and birds and rural landscape outings will involve the 100-500 and the 15-35. Two lenses. Thats it. Family stuff with grandchildren playing sports etc will involve the 100-500 and the 24-70. General travel? Maybe just the 24-70. But, what I take will all fit in a small backpack. Shouldn't be too bad. Maybe down the road I will add some more lenses. But, these three should get me going. I also want to do some astro and I am hoping the 15-35 will be adequate. We shall see. Thanks for the input. I feel so very fortunate to be able to have this lovely equipment for the last leg of my photography days. I hope is spurs me on to put in the effort. Fancy equipment is nice and all, but nothing comes of it without effort.
I got this lens with an R6 Mark II and it haunted me that I didn't go ahead and get the 24-105 F4 L lens. I rented the L lens to see what the difference was and I couldn't really tell the picture quality from both lenses apart when I analyzed them. Still, the build quality and weather sealing are swaying me to change versions of this lens because I like doing landscape photography when hiking.
I got this lens because it was cheap when i traded in for the R5 got some good shots, but when i tried to take HDR it says Not available with this lens :(
This RF lens is worlds ahead of the old www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/28-105mm.htm - however the old lens does work swell on an adapter, just that it has no IS and can’t focus as close.
I bought the RP recently. I love landscapes and am somewhat of an outfdoorsman and the wife and I travel. Is this a good lense for landscapes such as Yosemite? Your webiste is extremely helpful by the way!
Yes! Great lens for everything. I prefer the zoom range of the 24-240 www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/24-240mm.htm while the RF 24-105 STM Is a featherweight powerhouse.
Ken Rockwell thank you! Just bought it. Are you to provide more links to affordable wide angle lenses for the EOS RP? Really wanna shoot Yosemite and Big Pine this summer. And probably some places here in San Diego.
By wide do you mean wider than 24mm, which is as wide as most people need and which either of those other two lenses do? If you need wider, the worlds best is the expensive RF 15-35 www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/15-35mm-f28.htm if you want less expensive, I use my superb EF 16-35 IS www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/16-35mm-is.htm on an EF to RF adapter www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/ef-adapters.htm and of course you can use any older and very inexpensive ef lensss like the forgotten 20-35 USM www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/20-35mm.htm or sturdy 20/2.8 USM www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/20mm.htm
Ken Rockwell thank you so much! After extensive research on your website yesterday and through other TH-cam videos and friend recommendation, I actually went ahead and bought the 17-40mm f4 l. So now I have 3 lenses. A 50, 24-105, and the 17-40. The latter two are being shipped now but the 50 I have now. They’re all canon.
Yes; but this is a lens rather than a camera. I much prefer Canon over Nikon Mirrorless. See www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/nikon-vs-canon-vs-sony-full-frame.htm use this lens on a full frame Canon www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/index.htm like the R6 II www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/r6-ii.htm
I am looking at purchasing the Canon RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM. I’m looking to do family and couples photography (outdoor portraits). I’m a beginner at photography. Is this a good choice?
Yes, but it's a full frame lens mostly wasted on the APS-C R10. For the R10 the correct lens is the RF 18-140mm www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/18-150mm.htm which works so much better on the R10. Thanks!
They are equally sharp. They differ in Price and weight, where STM wins. Need fast f/stop at the 105 end? L wins. Need close macro or amazing IS? STM wins again. Thanks! See also www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/24-105mm-stm.htm#compared
Ken gets kinda always edge to edge super sharp lenses 🤔 The reality is unfortunately a bit different. This lens has pretty soft edges which don't get sharp by stopping down.
Mine is great. Be sure to buy it only from an approved source www.kenrockwell.com/links.htm#stores as I do to be sure you're not getting a returned bad sample, as happens if you make the mistake of buying at retail. Also getting sharp images, like playing the piano well, depends on a whole lot more than having a sharp lens. It's difficult to get the other factors out of the way so you can test just the lens and not interfering factors. Feel free to email me your soft results (JPG only) and I'll try to see what can be improved. THANKS!
Hey Ken, I am using a Sigma 35mm 1.4 lens on the RP and image stabilization is awful for video. I know it's not the best camera for video, but unfortunately I preferred the images so much over the 90D. Is there a rig/stabilizer you'd recommend for this? I don't remember it being this bad on the 90D before i returned it. Very curious, thanks!
I use iPhone - best stabilization. I can walk around with it hand-held and looks like it was shot on a dolly. Never seen anything anywhere near as good. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV This is exactly why I carry a Samsung Ultra in addition to my Iphone. Otherwise I would just use my now ancient A7r. I only bought a new Canon body thinking I need something Canon again with 4K, but I may not even use it for video. Maybe for the bit rate.
Yes, but it’s the wrong lens designed for larger cameras. You’re paying more and carrying a bigger lens and only using half of it on the R50. The lens for the R50 is the RF-S 18-150mm www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/18-150mm.htm
ordered this r6 lens kit, do you think it will be ok on the ronin s for music videos. also with the dual iso on the r6 do think it'll be an okay lens for lowlight
It’s a great lens optically. Low light? Fine at wide, not at tele. In photography light is the most important part; always better to improve your light than to change your lens. Thanks!
What’s “dual iso?” Great news is, assuming you use the same approved stores I use at www.kenrockwell.com/links.htm#stores that you can try it, and if you don’t love it, just sent it back for a full refund and no worries.
Ken Rockwell ooopss I currently shoot on a gh5 and was also looking at the s1 lineup. Best Buy does 45 day returns for 15% so I guess it’s better than renting
If you want to see how “sharp” this lens in the corners really is, I recommend you the video review of Christopher Frost. The corners never get sharp at 24mm. Sorry.... this is not an L lens by no means...
@@OscarD209 I took sharp photo's back in the days with my 5D mkII and the EF 70-200 f2/.8 which costed me a fortune. And I had a lot of EF L glass, but my 70-200 was razor sharp. Now I do it easy and bought a Canon RP and this lens to have a very good and light kit for day to day and photo trips and this lens is sharp. I think as sharp as my old L glass. I shot a Fuji X-T2 with the famous 56 f/1.2 and the Canon lens at f/7.1 is sharper as I compare the photos. I don't get all the negative on the Internet about this lens (and the RP). Of course this is not the best of the best, but does the average photo enthusiast need it? The L has more micro contrast etc, etc, but for people who don't need to get a deadline or print on billboards? I see all the amateurs photographing with thousands of euro's equipment and their images are sub par. Learn to photograph and this lens is very good.
@@joepverhaeg I have no doubt this lens can make amazing images in the hands of the right photographer. And I'm sure it has great image quality for what it is. The problem I have is Ken Rockwell making a subtle dig at Christopher Frost who I think stands head and shoulders above Ken Rockwell as a reviewer.
@@KenRockwellTV I saw that deal, but since I had the 6D, i felt it was only better for the size and weight. The dynamic range was about the same which is not great for noon time shooting (So don't shoot at noontime!). I haven't thoroughly tested it yet, but the R8 is better unfortunately at twice the cost. I wouldn't care or have know about that issue until I played around with my old A7r- that sensor is really good.
Goes to show that Canon’s is a point where they don’t know how to make a lens which isn’t fantastic Actually the only big disappointment being made today that I’ve used are those cheap Sony crop sensor lenses for the 6000 series
Sony made and still sells some really crappy lenses from the early 2010s for their Mirrorless before they got serous. The Sony 16/2.8 is the worst modern lens I’ve tested www.kenrockwell.com/sony/lenses/16mm-f28.htm#sharpness
Hahaha, that is so true. I have all those crappy lenses. They were really bad. Why did Sony introduce mirrorless to the world with such crappy lenses? I had to buy Sigma and other lenses and they were crappy, too. Even though Sony added those Zeiss lenses, this coincided with the advancement of the cellphone cameras. I thought all those Sony Nex bodies were horrible, but it was probably just those cheap lenses. The consumer lenses were all bad and regular folks couldn't really buy the prosumer ones. I still clung onto my A7r because of the sensor, but not those Nex bodies. Unfortunately, I still have a Sony 6xxx which I feel is not much better than a cellphone. That horrible 16mm. I have 3 of them and the wide and fish eye adapter too.
@@KenRockwellTV yes I think, as usual Canon wins with cheap and good lenses, at least since AE1 family. Plastic products still working and selling today
Because I actually shoot every day rather than just talk about it. I’m not a reviewer; I’m a full time shooter and have been for decades. See www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm Not everyone really knows how to use their gear properly and get great results, and they blame it on their gear. and See the full review and sample image files at www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/24-105mm-stm.htm
They pan it because of the old fashioned stigma that small maximum apertures lenses are cheap crappy ones. 3 things negate most of that: Full frame sensor has less noise, IS gets you lower ISO, full frame has much shallower DOF. Any of the smaller sensors are horrible in low light no matter how big a max aperture, but nobody says anything.
They can: get the classic EF 28-135 IS for $100 used www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/28-135mm.htm and add an adapter ring, and voila! You’ve get an even better zoom range for $200. Thanks!
![[LIVE] MCHOICE & MINT AWARDS 2024 at TRUE ICON HALL, ICONSIAM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wMewUeT5nbY/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you so much for showing actual pictures. THIS is how you review a lens. Vloggers have diluted the world of reviews for us stills shooters.
Thanks for noticing! You might appreciate www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm
One guy reviewed a vintage Canon Sure Shot Supreme film point and shoot camera for 20 minutes and didn't have any photos to prove his review.
Ken - you are such a good teacher of photography. Thank you for your web and video content - it always is a pleasure.
And thank you for writing!!!
Thank you finally a real review that actually explains the lens
Thank YOU!!!
I bought one refurbished off Canon for $319.00 (comes with 1-yr warranty). It's super sharp and focuses fast and silently compared to my RF 35 1.8 (which uses Gear type STM to focus as opposed to the Lead-screw type STM).
Thanks!
I have this lens and I just can't believe how good it is, I love it. Such great value too! Sure it isn't the fastest, but in the conditions I use it I always stop around those apertures anyway, so it's a none issue for me. Important to be said: it's a brilliant lens for video too thanks to the IS, and the lens corrections still apply in that mode whereas they don't with non-RF lenses.
Hee hee, that’s right. It is an awesome lens. Thanks!
Which camera do you have? Can you use multiple exposures with this lens attached?
@@redpillnibbler4423 I have a Canon RP. Multiple exposures on this camera only has additive and average, no dark or light, so I don't use it much. But if I recall well it only works with prime lenses.
@@lsamoa
Thanks for that.
For a long time, I didn't believe your reviews because you said every lens was good, but this 7.1 lens is actually really good. It is light, compact and the IS negates some of the complaints that you need to boost the ISO too much for such a slow lens. But since this is for full frame, there is still decent DOF at the long end. There is no longer any need for a crop sensor IMO. This will be the third time I clean out all my gear. First, when digital appeared. Second, when mirrorless appeared. And now, with Canon full frame mirrorless with compact zooms and primes. I personalized your settings for the R8 and this will be a perfect compliment to my Samsung Ultra for compact travel. Maybe with a small prime lens.
Pretty much every lens that's come out since 2010 has been optically super; it's not the old days anymore, Today it comes down to size and weight and handling. Thanks!
I was parroting all the internet talking points when my friend was looking into a kit with the RP and this lens - and trying to recommend him the RF 24-105 F4L. However, I immediately reversed my advice when I saw your pictures and comments. The price, weight, sharpness and macro ability make this a wonderful starter with the RP. Thanks!!
Thank you! All the Canon RF lenses are superb; all depends what you want to do. Thanks!
Hi Ken. Saw you on my YT homepage out of nowhere and immediately subscribed without watching any of your videos because I owe it to you after using your website countless times over the past decade whenever I needed some lens references. Wish you success here as well.
Thank you! My website is still the reference; videos here are summaries of the written reviews. Thanks!
Thanks for a very useful, and in my opinion, accurate review. I have been using and analysing this lens for a few days now and I am amazed. I only bought it to keep on my new EOS R6 Mk II as a family snap lens, based on your recommendation in this video, meaning to use my EOS L lenses with an adaptor for serious work, but it is way better than that. I actually got as good, if not better results from this lens in my (admittedly subjective) tests than my 24 - 105 f4 L. Of course this is f4 all the way, but I was able to get pretty good shallow depth of field with the new lens. At this price point it is a steal.
Agreed! Thanks!
Thanks Ken. Your review is truly helpful, not just for the lens, but for the getting it as kit lens with the R6.
Thank you!
Exactly what I needed to hear. Thank you Sir.
Thank YOU!!!
Hello Ken, thank you very much for your honest review about this lens, very helpful!
Thanks! That’s why I do these.
Excellent review! Thank you!
Thank YOU!
I agree with you about the sharpness of this kit lens. It seems very sharp to me and i't's nice and light. My ef 70-200 2.8 lens (that I hardly use anymore) is 3.28 pounds!
Yip, modern lenses are all super sharp. Thanks!
Thank you for this review and for showing the great macro of this lens.
Thanks for watching!
Ken Rockwell hey Ken
I love watching your reviews on cameras and lenses going back decades ago
When and what made you abandon your passion for Nikon and move to Canon
Kindest regards Ron
I just got this lens for $160 new from a guy said it came with his R6, first day pretty amazing.
Cool, huh? It’s not 1967; lenses today are all awesome.
@@KenRockwellTV ..that's what Ansel Adams would say😀
The best of the best : That would be a Ken Rockwell review. Many thanks 🙏 👍👍👍
Thank you!!!!
Thanks, Ken. Great to see an honest and budget conscious critic on TH-cam. Subscribed and looking forward to future videos.
Thanks Lauren! I just report it like I see it; I do this to help.
To think that they essentially gave this lens away for free during the Father's day sale... I paid 999 for my RP with it thrown in. I am used to kit lenses being landfill quality but I thought this one was great. Glad that the master himself saw it the same way.
Kit lenses have been really good since about 2004. Lenses are great lately; the optics are swell; it’s the mechanics and durability that vary. Thanks!
What a great review Ken, always appreciate your content on the website, I sometimes forget there's also a video review to go with it. This told me absolutely everything I needed to know and all the thoughts I had about the other lenses over the last few weeks you covered too, thanks!
THANKS!!! Yes, my website KenRockwell.com is always more detailed and up to date, and these videos are for fun. THANKS!!!
@@KenRockwellTV I think the videos are really great too! I'm watching some more now, getting back into cameras I have to re-familiarise myself and I find your stuff the most informative, so THANKS to you!
Great travel lens.
15-30mm f 4.5-6.3 IS STM
24-105mm f 4-7.1 IS STM
100-400mm f 5.6-8 IS USM
And one of those RF primes: 16, 24, 28, 35, 50 or 85mm (f 1.8 - 2.8) and you have great lightweight setup.
my fave is 15-30 and 24-240. DONE.
I really enjoyed this review! Just an honest opinion and no hate. The lens isn’t perfect but for what it costs, you really can’t beat it. Im going to pick one up for my R6MKII.
It’s a great lens!
Great review many thanks! 🙏🙏😊😊
The k you for watching! The full written review with sample image files is at www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/24-105mm-stm.htm
I bought this lense and for the money it really can't be beat. The L lense should be better for the price difference, good grief. Thanks for a good video,Ken.
L lens is just tougher, same great sharpness. Love this little lens!
Great review my rp package comes with this lens....patiently waiting on my camera to come in the mail
I hope you so love it!!!! Thanks!
Thanks for a great review, I just bought the RP, with this lens (even though I have the EF 24-105 f4L) based on your input, and the explaining the usefulness of it having a control ring! I was thinking of just getting just the EF to R adapter.
Nice, eh? Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTVI like it a lot! I set the ring for exposure compensation, its so useful and intuitive
With the better IS in these lenses, it's almost like the cameras don't know how to use it. I wish there was a way to have the camera favor a slower shutter speed before increasing iso in aperture, shutter, fv modes, etc...
there is. I always use Auto ISO and then set the slowest shutter speed inside Auto ISO to AUTO (it picks the slowest speed before it starts increasing ISO based on focal length). Once that's set, then shift that speed towards SLOWER. Done!
I have the OG EF 24-105 f/4 and I prefer this kit lens because it's so much lighter than the EF lens with the adaptor.
Exactly. Thanks!
Love adding this for my work in sports teams. Always shooting at F8 for this work so I don't need the wide-open look as I do for the lenses for portraits. I was hoping someone would confirm this for me. Thanks.
Yip, today almost all lenses are ultra sharp. It’s durability and high speed that costs.
Hey Ken, does this work on crop sensor cameras like the R50? I know your review says full frame but didn’t know if it would work on R crop sensors. Newbie here thanks.
Works great on APS-C, just that you’re buying a much bigger lens than you need. For APS-C the RF 18-150mm is much better www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/18-150mm.htm thanks!
Excellent review, in addition to analyzing objectively and without bias, I have the opportunity to improve the english language by listening to you, by the way, is your accent from CA or NY? Mr. Rockwell has excellent diction, speaks at the proper speed and I don’t need to use subtitles, thank you!
I try to keep a midwestern accent from our network TV. In USA it was discovered that that’s the accent that the greatest number of viewers will perceive as “normal” across our great land. Did you know that in the southern USA, when president Jimmy Carter was elected from Georgia, people sighed with relief that we finally had a president “without an accent!” Thanks! Where are you?
@@KenRockwellTV I am from São Paulo, Brazil, South America. I was very happy to hear Mr. Rockwell on TH-cam, in addition to reading the articles on the site. Reading and listening to a topic you like in another language is the best way to learn it. Very interesting the fact about Jimmy Carter, I didn't know about it. Thanks!
I do wonder if they will ever run that $999 for RP camera and lens deal again! Super deal! Canon, made in Japan, and lens made in Taiwan, yet sold for a low-low price. I will consider this RP camera and the Nikon Z50 which is nice APS-C with a FF mount camera.
Christmas is coming. Things often hit rock bottom prices. Thanks!
Thanks for the fantastic review. I would like to know how you compare this with the 24-240 lens?
Both great optically. 24-240 zooms farther but bigger and heavier. 24-105 better for macro. 24-240 replaces a tele zoom, too.
Ken Rockwell nice! As for sharpness, and Color rendition both are similar? The L version any better to justify the extra $$?
Timothy No significant difference in sharpness or contrast or color or anything optical. L is all about tougher build and faster speeds.
Ken Rockwell I’ll save so much getting this awesome lens then. Thanks! Been following you for over a decade now 👏👍
@@KenRockwellTV a lot of distorsion on the 24-240 and the corner are black at 24...
I recently purchased the R6 and reluctantly purchased their 15-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 .
I was debating to purchase the 24-105 4L in order to have something lighter for hiking , but I’m not sure if going from 900 grams with my 24-70 , to 700 grams with the 24-105 4L , is really going to feel beneficial.
Buying this lens is triggering my OCD , but it just makes sense for hiking . I’m not concerned about bokeh
Get the RF 24-105 STM or RF 24-240 for packing light. Pass right by the excellent RF 24-105/4L; the STM is much much lighter. Full reviews for all these lenses are at www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/index.htm
@@KenRockwellTV
Thanks Ken ,will check them out
I own the Nikon z6 ii with the 24-200 lens, I also own the canon r6. Would the canon 24-105 f4 lens be an upgrade over over my Nikon lens?
The lens wouldn’t be an upgrade, just different. The RF 24-105 f/4L IS is a much better-made lens, but only covers half the range of a 24-240. I love the RF 24-240 for Canon, and today they’re all great lenses. They’re all just as sharp in actual use; it’s all about what you need for what you do; that’s why there are so many choices. See all my lens reviews, complete with sample image files, at kenrockwell.com Thanks!
❤ I have this lense. Very good
Thanks!
It reminds me how the new Nikon z 24-70 F4 kit lens is indistinguishable image quality (apart from depth of field) from the the far more expensive F2.8 version
Yes, but the 24-70/4 isn’t as good as this lens and costs much more. It’s how Nikon spells “ripoff.”
I hear Nikon are really struggling financially to the degree they might have to sell off their photo section as per Olympus. They are desperate for profit so comparative prices may be higher. Canon and others will know this so could possibly put the pressure on Nikon with great bargains like these. A good time to buy into the Canon system?
Christian Petersen maybe it’s a good time to support Nikon?
The less competition in the future, the less need to develop better technology and others can push up prices
No one can say that Nikon cameras and lenses are not at lease as good or overall better than any of the competitors
@@ronaldsand3000 Nikon need to make a star camera soon - as a tech company there is only so long you can be in the background. I love my D750 but its six years since that camera stood out from the crowd.
Mark Shirley there is more to Nikon than bring out revolutionary models every couple of years
Ecosystem, colour science, image quality & build quality etc
I assume you’re D750 still produces great photos like it did the first day you bought it
All the very best
Does anyone have any information that this lens doesn’t allow multiple exposures to be used? This is a big deal to me before buy my first Canon R or R6.
Any information would be appreciated.
Never heard about any limitations to multiple exposure with this or any other lens, but haven’t looked. In the USA just ask Canon at (800) OK-CANON. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV
OK thanks.
excellent review, thanks a lot. How is the comparison with the RF 24-240? I chose that one as kit lens for the RP as at 105 and even at 240 it's more open than the 24-105.
Both sharp and good. 24-240 bigger and costs and does more. I prefer the 24-240.
@@KenRockwellTV thanks for comment. I had the choice for 24-240 and 24-105 as kit lens. The second kit wasn't available immediately, and I wasn't sure about the 24-240. But today I'm happy I made the selection for the longer one, and had the camera immediately instead if waiting two ir three weeks. Would be happy seeing your video review of the 24-240. Read of course already your review on kenrockwell.com
Thanks for this. I am assembling lens for a new Canon R6. I am new to Canon and so I have no collection of EF lenses. I have the RF 15-35 and the RF 100-500. I am considering what to purchase next. This lens? The L version (f/4) of this lens? Maybe the RF 24-70 2.8? Or the RF 70-200 f2.8?
Do you plan to post a video review of the RF 24-105 f4?
Every Canon RF lens review is in explicit detail at www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/index.htm all are optically great; your question is how much do you want to carry? The 24-105 stm is ultralight. Personally I prefer the 24-240 as it means I don’t usually have to carry my beloved 100-400L IS II. Pictures will all be the same.
If you can afford the RF 70-200 /f2.8 it’s the way to go
@@wesleybrilhante5989 Maybe. But, for the moment, I want the reach of the 100-500 and the 70-200 does not accept extenders. So, I'm leaning toward adding the RF 24-70 to my kit and stopping there for the time being. I won't carry everything. Wildlife and birds and rural landscape outings will involve the 100-500 and the 15-35. Two lenses. Thats it. Family stuff with grandchildren playing sports etc will involve the 100-500 and the 24-70. General travel? Maybe just the 24-70. But, what I take will all fit in a small backpack. Shouldn't be too bad. Maybe down the road I will add some more lenses. But, these three should get me going. I also want to do some astro and I am hoping the 15-35 will be adequate. We shall see. Thanks for the input. I feel so very fortunate to be able to have this lovely equipment for the last leg of my photography days. I hope is spurs me on to put in the effort. Fancy equipment is nice and all, but nothing comes of it without effort.
I got this lens with an R6 Mark II and it haunted me that I didn't go ahead and get the 24-105 F4 L lens. I rented the L lens to see what the difference was and I couldn't really tell the picture quality from both lenses apart when I analyzed them. Still, the build quality and weather sealing are swaying me to change versions of this lens because I like doing landscape photography when hiking.
Exactly. Pictures are identical, L just more expensive and built tougher and faster at the long end. Glad we have so many choices from Canon.
I got this lens because it was cheap when i traded in for the R5 got some good shots, but when i tried to take HDR it says Not available with this lens :(
What? Never seen that. Thanks!
Will it allow multiple exposures please? i’m a multi exp photographer so its a deal breaker for me.
Ken,
This lens or a EF 28-105 USM 11 with adapter on Canon RP?
This RF lens is worlds ahead of the old www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/28-105mm.htm - however the old lens does work swell on an adapter, just that it has no IS and can’t focus as close.
Hi Ken, I have this lens and the f4 red ring version. I swear its as sharp or sharper and has the the same amount of contrast. Did you notice this?
Also, how is the IS Vs the L version?
Thanks!
Yes, that’s what I said. They’re both as sharp. It’s not sharpness for which you’re paying with the L.
See my written reviews for definitive tests www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/index.htm
IS is similar, with a slight nod to the cheaper version. See the IS sections of each of their reviews. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV Thank you Ken.
I bought the RP recently. I love landscapes and am somewhat of an outfdoorsman and the wife and I travel. Is this a good lense for landscapes such as Yosemite? Your webiste is extremely helpful by the way!
Yes! Great lens for everything. I prefer the zoom range of the 24-240 www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/24-240mm.htm while the RF 24-105 STM Is a featherweight powerhouse.
Ken Rockwell thank you! Just bought it. Are you to provide more links to affordable wide angle lenses for the EOS RP? Really wanna shoot Yosemite and Big Pine this summer. And probably some places here in San Diego.
By wide do you mean wider than 24mm, which is as wide as most people need and which either of those other two lenses do? If you need wider, the worlds best is the expensive RF 15-35 www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/15-35mm-f28.htm if you want less expensive, I use my superb EF 16-35 IS www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/16-35mm-is.htm on an EF to RF adapter www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/ef-adapters.htm and of course you can use any older and very inexpensive ef lensss like the forgotten 20-35 USM www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/20-35mm.htm or sturdy 20/2.8 USM www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/20mm.htm
Ken Rockwell thank you so much! After extensive research on your website yesterday and through other TH-cam videos and friend recommendation, I actually went ahead and bought the 17-40mm f4 l. So now I have 3 lenses. A 50, 24-105, and the 17-40. The latter two are being shipped now but the 50 I have now. They’re all canon.
Would you recommend this camera over the Nikon Z50 16-50mm for outdoor portraits? Family/couples photography?
Yes; but this is a lens rather than a camera. I much prefer Canon over Nikon Mirrorless. See www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/nikon-vs-canon-vs-sony-full-frame.htm use this lens on a full frame Canon www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/index.htm like the R6 II www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/r6-ii.htm
I am looking at purchasing the Canon RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM. I’m looking to do family and couples photography (outdoor portraits). I’m a beginner at photography. Is this a good choice?
I can use this on the R10?
Yes, but it's a full frame lens mostly wasted on the APS-C R10. For the R10 the correct lens is the RF 18-140mm www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/18-150mm.htm which works so much better on the R10. Thanks!
Hi Ken what flash unit do you recommend with this combination
I use a 320EX www.kenrockwell.com/canon/flash/320ex.htm there are newer small flashes, but I haven’t tried them.
@@KenRockwellTV thank you very much Ken for your prompt reply.
What's the majore different 24-105 F4 vs F4-7.1?
They are equally sharp. They differ in Price and weight, where STM wins. Need fast f/stop at the 105 end? L wins. Need close macro or amazing IS? STM wins again. Thanks! See also www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/24-105mm-stm.htm#compared
@@KenRockwellTV which one best for group photos nd wedding photography?
They’re the same for that, unless you want wider than f/7.1 at the 105mm end.
@@KenRockwellTV thanks for immediate reply
Ken gets kinda always edge to edge super sharp lenses 🤔 The reality is unfortunately a bit different. This lens has pretty soft edges which don't get sharp by stopping down.
Mine is great. Be sure to buy it only from an approved source www.kenrockwell.com/links.htm#stores as I do to be sure you're not getting a returned bad sample, as happens if you make the mistake of buying at retail. Also getting sharp images, like playing the piano well, depends on a whole lot more than having a sharp lens. It's difficult to get the other factors out of the way so you can test just the lens and not interfering factors. Feel free to email me your soft results (JPG only) and I'll try to see what can be improved. THANKS!
Hey Ken, I am using a Sigma 35mm 1.4 lens on the RP and image stabilization is awful for video. I know it's not the best camera for video, but unfortunately I preferred the images so much over the 90D. Is there a rig/stabilizer you'd recommend for this? I don't remember it being this bad on the 90D before i returned it. Very curious, thanks!
I use iPhone - best stabilization. I can walk around with it hand-held and looks like it was shot on a dolly. Never seen anything anywhere near as good. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV This is exactly why I carry a Samsung Ultra in addition to my Iphone. Otherwise I would just use my now ancient A7r. I only bought a new Canon body thinking I need something Canon again with 4K, but I may not even use it for video. Maybe for the bit rate.
Are you hinting to not get the L? I cancelled my order for it.
The L is great and tougher and bigger and faster and much more expensive. See www.kenrockwell.com/tech/is-it-worth-it.htm
Can this lens be use for R50 APSC mirrorless camera ?
Yes, but it’s the wrong lens designed for larger cameras. You’re paying more and carrying a bigger lens and only using half of it on the R50. The lens for the R50 is the RF-S 18-150mm www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/18-150mm.htm
ordered this r6 lens kit, do you think it will be ok on the ronin s for music videos. also with the dual iso on the r6 do think it'll be an okay lens for lowlight
It’s a great lens optically. Low light? Fine at wide, not at tele. In photography light is the most important part; always better to improve your light than to change your lens. Thanks!
What’s “dual iso?” Great news is, assuming you use the same approved stores I use at www.kenrockwell.com/links.htm#stores that you can try it, and if you don’t love it, just sent it back for a full refund and no worries.
Ken Rockwell ooopss I currently shoot on a gh5 and was also looking at the s1 lineup. Best Buy does 45 day returns for 15% so I guess it’s better than renting
DONT USE BEST BUY! 15% is a rip off. Use any of the places I do and it’s free to return from these places www.kenrockwell.com/links.htm#stores
If you want to see how “sharp” this lens in the corners really is, I recommend you the video review of Christopher Frost. The corners never get sharp at 24mm. Sorry.... this is not an L lens by no means...
Sorry if Mr. Frost couldn’t get sharp results. I do. Thanks!
Maybe you’ve never taken a sharp photo 🤔 so you think this is sharp.
@@OscarD209 I took sharp photo's back in the days with my 5D mkII and the EF 70-200 f2/.8 which costed me a fortune. And I had a lot of EF L glass, but my 70-200 was razor sharp. Now I do it easy and bought a Canon RP and this lens to have a very good and light kit for day to day and photo trips and this lens is sharp. I think as sharp as my old L glass. I shot a Fuji X-T2 with the famous 56 f/1.2 and the Canon lens at f/7.1 is sharper as I compare the photos. I don't get all the negative on the Internet about this lens (and the RP). Of course this is not the best of the best, but does the average photo enthusiast need it? The L has more micro contrast etc, etc, but for people who don't need to get a deadline or print on billboards? I see all the amateurs photographing with thousands of euro's equipment and their images are sub par. Learn to photograph and this lens is very good.
@@joepverhaeg I have no doubt this lens can make amazing images in the hands of the right photographer. And I'm sure it has great image quality for what it is. The problem I have is Ken Rockwell making a subtle dig at Christopher Frost who I think stands head and shoulders above Ken Rockwell as a reviewer.
Oscar Diaz Ok, I don’t have an opinion on that because I don’t know both reviewers well enough. 😀
This lens would be a really great option if there would be a very simple but great and cheap FX body. Let's say for $ 600.
There is: it’s called the EOS RP www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/rp.htm thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV I saw that deal, but since I had the 6D, i felt it was only better for the size and weight. The dynamic range was about the same which is not great for noon time shooting (So don't shoot at noontime!). I haven't thoroughly tested it yet, but the R8 is better unfortunately at twice the cost. I wouldn't care or have know about that issue until I played around with my old A7r- that sensor is really good.
Goes to show that Canon’s is a point where they don’t know how to make a lens which isn’t fantastic
Actually the only big disappointment being made today that I’ve used are those cheap Sony crop sensor lenses for the 6000 series
Sony made and still sells some really crappy lenses from the early 2010s for their Mirrorless before they got serous. The Sony 16/2.8 is the worst modern lens I’ve tested www.kenrockwell.com/sony/lenses/16mm-f28.htm#sharpness
Hahaha, that is so true. I have all those crappy lenses. They were really bad. Why did Sony introduce mirrorless to the world with such crappy lenses? I had to buy Sigma and other lenses and they were crappy, too. Even though Sony added those Zeiss lenses, this coincided with the advancement of the cellphone cameras. I thought all those Sony Nex bodies were horrible, but it was probably just those cheap lenses. The consumer lenses were all bad and regular folks couldn't really buy the prosumer ones. I still clung onto my A7r because of the sensor, but not those Nex bodies. Unfortunately, I still have a Sony 6xxx which I feel is not much better than a cellphone. That horrible 16mm. I have 3 of them and the wide and fish eye adapter too.
It is difficult for me to re-train my brain for this new mirrorless world where f/7.1 is still a usable f/ number.
Then use f/8, the worlds best aperture. This isn’t film; we don’t need f/1.4 lenses anymore, thank goodness.
Remember when 400 speed film was a last resort? That is 125000 now.
Price
Quality. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV yes I think, as usual Canon wins with cheap and good lenses, at least since AE1 family. Plastic products still working and selling today
Many other reviewers pan this lens. You sing its praises. Why the divergence?
Because I actually shoot every day rather than just talk about it. I’m not a reviewer; I’m a full time shooter and have been for decades. See www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm Not everyone really knows how to use their gear properly and get great results, and they blame it on their gear. and See the full review and sample image files at www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/24-105mm-stm.htm
They pan it because of the old fashioned stigma that small maximum apertures lenses are cheap crappy ones. 3 things negate most of that: Full frame sensor has less noise, IS gets you lower ISO, full frame has much shallower DOF. Any of the smaller sensors are horrible in low light no matter how big a max aperture, but nobody says anything.
@@superteamvideo1930 Thank you.
Have to really be a Canon Fan Boy to Like This Lens !!!
Or a seasoned artist with decades of knowing what really matters. Thanks!
400 bucks is way too much Ken! Why can’t they make this lens be about 200 bucks?
They can: get the classic EF 28-135 IS for $100 used www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/28-135mm.htm and add an adapter ring, and voila! You’ve get an even better zoom range for $200. Thanks!