@@mikepawlikguitar You know what is the difference between 7.1 and 5.6? The difference between ISO 800 and 1200. If you don't like it you can always buy the F4 version for 3 times the price and 2 times the weight.
@@todanrg3 Why does nobody mention that this lens has a 5 stop image stabilization. You can get that back down to iso 400 if you want. People are so close minded.
This lens is about the same as the 18-85 kit found with the crop bodies. They're 'cropping' the lens instead of cropping the sensor because everyone wants to shoot in FF.
Despite all the limitations, this lens probably provides a great, lightweight kit for e.g. the EOS RP. The dark aperture is only a problem for low light and action photography, but people shooting in such situations would never buy it anyway. For the rest, technology of today can easily cope with it; the EVF can compensate and AF performance is very quick indeed. The tests in this video show that it is very fast, just not lightning fast as in e.g. a Nano USM lens.
Yes. It's great lens for outdoors and hiking. It also adds a wide range of macro. Landscapers and studio work rarely shoots below F8 too. If 'speed' isn't enough, you can pair it with the RF 35.
I have an EOS RP and it's a good enough camera to deserve better lenses than this for sure. Even my 1990s 28-135mm EF lens is much faster than this, at f/3.5-5.6, and those things cost like $100. And it has in-camera correction profiles on these cameras, AND also have image stabilization.
Ok, I made a direct comparison to the EF 24-105 STM 3.5-5.6 myself. In the center picture quality is the same. On the edges the EF is sharper than the RF lens. The difference in aperture is hardly noticeable. I have chosen to keep the RF lens and sell the EF version because of smaller size and leighter weight. Also with the RF lens there is not need for the adapter. Cheers Stefan
I thought the same with the EF F4. Size and weight matters enough that I will not bring it if it gets in my way. Plus, I have all the tiny primes adapted so I never worry about wide apertures or low light. Don't forget, the IS allows you to get lower ISOs at the better apertures.
Theory: Canon is going to offer this lens in a kit with the EOS RP for $999 US. Why I think this? The RF 24-240 (list price $899.99) was getting bundled with the $999 RP already for $1499. This was about a $400 discount on the list price of the lens. The RF 24-240 is about the same quality as the new lens, but with a much larger focal range. The RP just dropped in price the other day to $899 on Best Buy and Amazon (and maybe elsewhere), right before the R5 press conference. A $999 pricepoint for a modern full frame mirrorless, and a good focal range kit zoom like this is nearly unheard of. Canon could easily corner the market on the low end with this kit, and on the high end with the R5.
A full frame with a decent lens for 1000$ it's really interesting. On used market you'll soon find them for about 600$.. this means that a modern full frame will be affordable for everybody.
@@ZhigeLi Yeah, I literally just found out yesterday and ran out to buy the bundle myself. Was going to wait and get the RP + 35mm when I had a bit more money, but local best buy only had one of these bundles and it was too good of a deal to pass up.
I'd say by next year. This Christmas I have no doubt Canon will do a big sales blitz with this lens and the RP, and I bet it sells a ton. Then, when people realize how shite this lens is and they actually care about having a good lens, they will flood the used market trying to recoup. No different from the 18-55mm lenses that get bundled. I have two of those that never see the light of day, one that never came out of the friggin box. I never even bothered to try to sell them since they are just not worth anything and anyone that would want one already has it! LOL
@@kevindiaz3459 My first camera was a Canon 400D with the 18-55 kit lens. Unfortunately it took me a while to realise how terrible it was. With a decent lens, even a 400D can actualy take great pictures, but I didn't know that before swapping to better lenses. Don't under-estimate used gear value though. I digged it out my old stuff box, and decided to sell it after more than 10 years... The 400D (working well but with significant wear) was sold 100€ within 2 days. The 18-55 (perfect condition lol, not much used) was sold 50€ within 24h, and I had a lot of contacts, I'm sure it could be sold even more than that. Honestly I didn't even expect to sell it, but it seems that there is a market, even for old crappy entry level stuff lol
@@mrinsaf Did you ever use any good lens? I think you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't say that this 18-55 is amazing LOL. I owned some gear from budget to professionnal, and also things in between, and yes, I can tell you that this lens is REALLY bad. Poor autofocus, poor optics, small aperture, no IS. I can't see anything good about it, except maybe the price. Even my mid-range smartphone is better in a lot of aspects than a kit like this. A decent lens on a decent camera helps taking better pictures, it offers a lot more possibilities, and is just a lot more pleasant to use. Now, can you take great pictures with a 18-55? If you don't care about image quality, yes. But there is MUCH better options, even for low price
Six years old 24-105mm IS STM looks to be much better lens, nevertheless, Fullframe sensor cameras just deserve standard zoom with at least f/4 anyway.
You missing a point of this lens. The lens you mentioned is much bigger. And full frame is getting into affordable category, no longer is a premium. That means we will soon see a sub $1000 brand new FF camera. So those affordable cameras will need a kit lens similar in size and price. And the 7.1 aperture at 105mm is still brighter than a 5.6 lens on APS-C, for example.
Wabajak13 The 24-85 is very soft in the corners as well. I sold my copy to get a 24-105 f4. It’s not perfect either but at least it has OIS and longer zoom
Everyone forgets, if you use this lens on a full frame body, you get incredible shallow DOF compared to any crop sensor or 1 inch compact camera. The "slowness" does not matter as much because of this factor. Another complaint is that at those smaller apertures, you will need to increase ISO, thereby increasing noise. That's not 100% correct because with the image stabilization, you can get lower shutter speeds to lower the ISO assuming your subject can be stationary. Since this lens is not a professional lens, you do not need 105mm at F2. A portrait at over 10feet away an 100mm F2, only the eyes would be in focus. It would be better to keep an 85 1.8 or 100 F2 around for that purpose. But if you are needing a zoom lens, you are probably not shooting portraits all day long anyways. Wide open at 24mm is not necessary (if that is the worse performance of the lens) because F4.5 is essentially the same. The wide focal lens doesn't need a high shutter speed to prevent blurring and with the 5 stop image stabilization, it doesn't matter. What really matters is that this lens is one of the sharpest camera branded kit lenses that I have ever seen since the beginning of digital photography. I am not kidding. I have been using a 15 year old 35mm prime for ages and I cannot say that this zoom lens is a dog. For the purpose it is made for (travel, convenience), this is an incredibly good lens. It's a full generation above any kit lens from S, N or even F. As everyone has said a million times, the only camera that matters will the the one you bring. I can tell you, not many people are bringing the F2 zooms or even F4 zooms for that matter. I will only bring this zoom and 1 or 2 primes and my Samsung Ultra (AI is getting very, very good). There is no need these days to dabble in a crop sensor. There is no more need to worry about video (your phone can already do it very well). There is no time to use all this crap.
I bought this lens like 5 days ago (together with an EOS R). I found this channel two days ago, I checked out the reviews of all the expensive RF lenses. Yesterday, I decided to search if you had made a review on this lens, but I only found your review on the 35mm prime. You loved that one though so I got my hopes up that I also had a good lens. And today I saw this video... Well rip me I guess lmao. Thank you so much for the awesome review though!
@@ekevanderzee9538 Thank you, luckily they are even open on the holiday tomorrow (gathering from your username I think you know which one I'm talking about)! I'll make a call to them than. I checked out the website of the store and if I had bought the bundle of the body and the L 24-105 mm lens, it wouldn't even be such a huge difference between what I now paid. I'm wondering if they let me trade in this almost new lens with a small amount of money for the L lens :O
This lens is absolute trash, especially for the EOS R, don't waste your money on this, buy the RF 24-105 f/4L. The RF 35mm is SIGNIFICANTLY better than this cheap shit.
For the average consumer that lens will be fine, Canon needs that kind of lens to be available for kits and frankly TH-cam reviewers are all jaded due to too much reviewing, so they don't connect with average consumers in terms of their knowledge and expectations. So, consumers of the average type will be fine with it, and will enjoy it, especially outside and on trips, and it will keep the costs down for them as well. Glad they are going with less expensive lenses, and besides plenty of third party people will be after making many lenses of various quality for the RF mount. Think of how far he had to enlarge the image to see the performance, most people will never do that, just camera mavens, and they are not typical of consumers, for them, they can shell out thousands in search of perfection, which is nice for us all. But a range of quality and performance is needed for the market, otherwise the RF mount won't make it. Think of what Canon Rebels sell for including a kit, and the lower volume that will be coming due to the "thing" - Best wishes!
Wouldn’t average consumers buy an aps-c camera? Full frame cameras aren’t cheap for the casual shooter. You can expect full frame buyers to know their apertures and at that point you’re giving them the option between experiencing a blackout or spending 3k. Btw, the RF mound as a product should be profitable on its own. Subtracting from entry level aps-c cameras is bad business at best and completely illogical in general.
I have one of these on an EOS R and it works great. The image quality is more than adequate if you're not going above 15x12. It is well balanced on the camera and makes a great travel camera outfit. And yes, I do have a set of L-series lenses and in real-world use you have to take into account the weight of extra glass. The f7.1 issue is not a problem
Hi Chris, this is my go-to site for lens reviews, and again an excellent informative, balanced and concise review of this lens. As many have stated this lens's cons (f7.1; poor image quality) outweigh it's pros (price; size) for me. The EOS R, RP and forthcoming R5 require top quality glass to exploit their full potential, this lens doesn't do that imho.
At this point, I can't tell if Canon cares about their RF lenses as a whole like it seemed like they did or just the pro end of the spectrum. The 24-240 was _horrific_ on the wide end and the only leg up this one has is the fact that it covers more of the full frame circle. They claimed their giant mount meant they could make faster, smaller lenses. They should have proven that and did Sony's 28-70 better than them.
years later I'm still chasing my tail on this topic - I have the 15-35 F2.8 Rf and the 100-400ii.... on occasion I would like to have something to cover that 35-100mm gap - but! It seems like the only "decent" option is the F4 24-105 RF... I'm just not thrilled about the price
@@07wrxtr1 And now you see half of my problem with them. The good native options for that focal range are expensive, and the cheaper ones have some glaring issues that make them worth avoiding. This is why I'm such an advocate for cheap adapters and vintage lenses.
@@07wrxtr1 Or some manual focus primes from the 70s and 80s from various brands if you don't need autofocus or could live without a zoom. Only you know whether you need those two things or not. Personal preference for me, I prefer covering 35 to 85 with primes.
Haha, I just got an R8 after buying all these Sony bodies. Sony bodies are good, their lenses are not. Canon was right to release this lens and a bunch of small primes. NOBODY wants to carry an "SLR" bulky body anymore. With a small Canon full frame body (RP, R8) this is what I am complementing my Samsung Ultra with. It doesn't have to be one way or the other. The full frame captures all the details. If it looks good on my phone I take another with the Canon.
I bought this lens after running around on the mountains over my holidays with 35mm f1.8 macro IS RF, wide, but I found that zoom would be helpful, the dark end of this lens is not an issue if it`s used in full sun landscape... sharpnes on the corners... well, I like to shoot panoramic photos merged from 13-30 expositions, one photo on each area of the view, sharpness in the middle is enough, the resoiult is always cropped to 1920px on longer edge so it`s sharp enough for that resolution, that`s my way. Comparing: the lens is great for daily walk, landscapes, travel... bot for photo sessions, weddings and other photography I have primes and thios particular one 24-105 is always at home when I`m photographing those other things.
Exactly, plus a lot of EF primes are really excellent and cheap right now. I still use my 35mm F2 ALL the time. This zoom lens is just as fun as when I had the F4 version almost 20 years ago but the body and lens now weighs as little as the lens itself!
Hopefully soon! Unfortunately, Canon RF mount is closed to third party. Yes, Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, etc could possibly reverse engineer it but it wouldn't be as good as native. Reasons, why I shoot with Sony right now, their mount is opened to everyone!
This is a $400 full-frame lens 24-105mm with 5 stops IBIS that weights less than 400 grams. Anyone who thinks that this lens is mediocre for the price should get their brain checked.
@@-WhizzBang- How much is a Canon RP? Less than $1000. This lens not meant to be for $5000 Pro FF cameras. Not everyone wants or needs $1000+ lenses. This lens combined with a FF sensor is still brigher than the usual 5.6 APS-C lens. For the price it's a very good lens! If you want better, get the F4 variant for 3 times the price or the 24-70 2.8 for 5 times the price!
@@todanrg3 the Canon RP is also a piece of junk. I have used this lens, and in my opinion, it is a cheap piece of garbage. You get what you pay for, which is WHY you will never see any real photographers use this lens for anything other than a paper weight! But hey, if it works for you, then great! I just hope nobody is paying you for any photography work!
In your test image, near the lower-left corner was taken in Portmeirion Village, Cornwall, correct? That was where the 1967 British television series "The Prisoner" was filmed. I'm told you can stay there. Did you stay there to take that shot?
One of the best reviews of a product, you make sensible comparisons, easy for the viewer to digest, most of all you clarify with facts one can see, many thanks.
And the nominee for the "worst RF lens ever" is... The Canon 24-105 f/4-7.1 ! The 24-240 was a good candidate too, but at least it has an impressive zoom range, so I think it may be interesting for some people. But here I don't see who's gonna buy a lens like this. It needed at least a good image quality... If money is the limitation factor, you better go with a smaller sensor camera and buy a decent lens...
Gung Krisna still we’re talking about full frame and a kit lens for a bodies that are likely to start around the $1500 mark. I would argue that people buying into the RF System do have experience with better aps-c lenses than the kit lens they are going to get.
Lol, I'm stuck with it since it was bundled with the RP I got for a deal. Body only was 899 and bundle was 999, so I effectively paid $100 for the lens... For that price I'd say it's alright, it's actually pretty good for video. Saving up for the RF 24-105 f/4 now.
Good to see Canon putting some more affordable non L RF lens options on the market, shame about it only being 7.1 end at the telephoto end though, I managed to get a good condition EF 24-105 L F4 for my Canon EOS RP for £300 & I'd be advising my friends to do the same given that this is priced at £450 in the UK. Great review as always Christopher 👍
I was going to do that given my favorite lens when I had my 5D was that 24-105L, but then I remembered that that Mk I lens was not really that sharp and even at F4, the DOF was very, very shallow compared to any crop sensor or 1 inch compact (The original 5D having terribly slow focus, too). Being that it would be 1 inch even longer with the EF-R adapter and it was as big and heavy as I remembered, I tried this first. Plus, I have all the primes in the focal lengths I like, so who can complain when the total (body and lens) weight is at about 2 pounds. The difference between now and back then is the smaller bodies, better image stabilization and much, much better optics on the 7.1 lens.
The F-stop would still be F4-7.1. That doesn't change. The FL would be somewhere around 15-65mm, that is pretty close. From a technical point of view, crop factor also doesn't change the focal length, but rather the effective angle of view. People express it as FL since it seems easier to understand it that way, but then, I think that is really only true for those that have the knowledge of what FL is most useful in a given scenario for a full frame camera. Then, when compared to crop factor, that knowledge tells them what FL to use. It's more confusing than it has to be...
It's still a little bit better than a crop kit. While F7.1 will always be F7.1 in terms of light-gathering, keep in mind that FF shoots higher ISO better than a crop. So, it's still right to assume the same F4.4 performance on a crop altough not always correct. It depends on sensor quality for the light.
With an infinite depth of field. And that's why many people want to try a "proper" camera instead of their phone. I guess we'll see many RP's on Ebay soon with all that disappointment coming up.
Kevin Diaz I’ll try to explain it again. You have two DIFFERENT cameras with two DIFFERENT lenses. One is full frame (FF) camera with a lens 105mm, Aperture set to 7.1, ISO 500, shutter speed let’s say 1/100s. The other camera is a 1.6 crop (APSC) with a 65mm lens, aperture set to 4.4, ISO 200, shutter speed 1/100s. If you take pictures with those two cameras and settings mentioned above, you’ll get the exact same RESULT (same composition, same depth of field, same exposure and even the noise level is the same on same generation sensors). This is just physics, this is how it works and it’s been proven and you can try it too (people tend to argue until they try it). So, there’s really no difference between APSC and FF if you had equal performing lenses (which would be also equal sized). Just a side point: the real difference whether to chose APSC or FF system is the lens selection (for example, you can get 85mm f/1.2 for a FF but there’s no 50mm f/0.75 for an APSC system) and the fact that FF camera base ISO is usually 100 whereas APSC camera base ISO is also 100 but it should be translated to ~40 for the same results. Alright, after that theory, back to my point: People get mad about a FF lens f/7.1. But they are fine with APSC f/5.6 lenses that give you even worse results... Once again, we talk about FF lenses on FF cameras, APSC lenses on APSC cameras
Man, 6.3 vs 7.1 it´s about 1/3 of a stop less... It´s the difference between shooting at ISO 1050 instead of 800, so not that much. But if you said f5.6, I would agreed with you :P
I think this is a great option. I personally mostly shoot primes but it's sometimes nice just to have a zoom in the bag to cover a wider area. The fact that is slow doesn't matter so much if you're carrying primes as well.
Exactly, Canon did what Sony did not do. Release a bunch of small good enough primes. Like candy for photographers. I only use the 35F2 and will add the 28RF pancake for ultimate portability. And this lens is sharp enough to actually say it's better than my cellphone. Many lenses are not. Even the pancake 40mm2.8 adapted is good, but a slow focuser. Many of those tiny primes I rarely use 50, 85, 100 can all be adapted and are excellent lenses.
Nicely said. I use this 24-105 f7.1 on my R8 as a very nice walkaround lens. I have the RF 16 2.8, 28 2.8, 35 1.8, 86 2.0 from which I will select one or two as complements to the 7.1 based on what/where I am shooting. But often the 7.1 just stays on the body. (Have the R10 I use for wildlife with other lenses but that is another story).
This is, for me, a 18-55mm for full frame, though with a much better focal length range. I would expect it to deliver slightly sharper pictures with more clarity on the R, than the 18-55mm on APS-C.
Hello Christopher, I have a canon 24-85 ( featured on your channel) and an older EF canon 70-210, EF 50mm 1.8 and a Tamron SP 15-30. I have a RP camera. Should I go for the RF 24-105 or RF 24-70 or 24-240 in this review or RF 24-105 4-7.1,? I am thinking of upgrading later to a R5 or something but maybe it is too much to spend USD 2500 on a 24-70 lens when the RP is USD 1300 at the most?
I have all that just like you. For the lenses I rarely use, the adapter will just be fine. But for the most compact and highest (and cheapest option), I went RF 7.1. It's way sharper than the old 24-85 and half the weight or more than the rest. If you understand FF, IS, ISO and apertures then 7.1 may not be an issue.
Thank you Chris for one more clear and concise review! Always one of the first if not the first to review a new lens. I was wondering if you could add in the future samples that show bokeh and sunstars quality as these are determining factors for an image's native technical quality along with the lens' optics. Was hoping for this lens to have near optical quality to the more expensive f4 L. But it turns out the slow aperture, lack of weather sealing and dedicated control ring and missing hood and bag weren't enough factors to keep the lens cheap, small and light. Optics are less than stellar at the wide end. Oh well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but vignette and corner blur should not be a big problem when mounted on an APS-C sensor, right? How do you recommend it for R50 as a second lens to 18-45mm rfs? Planning to get 16mm and 50mm primes as well. Thanks
What do you think a new enthusiast to the photography would have a happier time with: the 24-105 f4-7.1 and buying the ef/rf adaptor or the paying for the 24-240 kit? The person is mainly training their eye and mind to be well versed in taking pictures of their growing family.
Hi christopher. With your videos on the sharpness chart section. Would you say from taking screenshots and comparing side by side to other lenses i can get an accurate measure of sharpness comparisons? If its an older video on 1080 i put newer one on 1080 to compare to make it fair.. So i put two screenshots side by side from your vids and compare lense sharpness Usually you use adjectives to describe sharpness. Would be cool if you had a numbering rating of overall sharpness from 100 being full frame and beat lense combo youve ever seen down etc And im assuming body of camera makes almost no difference Is it wise to go by that method you think
@@christopherfrost thanks for replying. I have watched yours and distin abbot review of the samyang rf 85mm 1.4. You both love that lense. For its price what an opportunity for a regular budget to come close to the best lenses. ive thrown all out the sensible canon all rounders out window and ill get that as my only lense. For a while
Do you think Canon's old discontinued 24-85 mm would outperform this one in the wide range? Would be interesting to see that old gem tested on the R platform against the new generation- and I assume the lens correction profiles will work on the newer cameras too...
Got a Canon refurbished one for a bit more than $100. Has not been using it much until recently finally found a good use case - under daytime outdoors where a large aperture cannot be used anyway without ND.
Makes me really appreciate my APS-C 18-200 with f6.3 on the 200 end.. I suppose the 7.1 is the price to pay for a similarly compact full frame super(ish) zoom
Hey Chris love your videos. Everyone says IS can help you drag the shutter. Have u done any testing with either Sony ibis or canon is to see how much more the IS gives you if u keep iso and f stop the constant? I looked and didn’t see if there is any calculations that incorporates this setting.
I'm sure this lens will go down in price, but at the moment, adapting ef glass sounds like a better idea. Also, I thought that f 6.3 would be the ridiculous new normal for z and rf superzooms, but f7.1 is kind of staggering. My mft kit telephoto is f11 equivalent, which isn't much darker.
@efreutel With inflation, maybe it is a drop in real terms lol. But lens selection has improved on mirrorless and the used market is more active thanks to the elapsed time.
This came as a kit lens with my RP and.. well, it has a ton to be desired. 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 has just under 5x zoom. 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. With all 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 it's 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 (this 24-105 has even more obv), produce good enough image for the sensor, and most importantly, affordable.
This makes me think of the future of Canon EOS R/RF line up. I can see two things, first and most absolutely, this variable aperture 24-105mm would came generations after generations with some improvements along the way as kit lens, and second (depending on the popularity of Canon R system) they will be making an RF 24-70 variable aperture as the cheaper kit lens option like the EF-S 18-55 we all know (and love?).
Considering this is a beginner’s lens, for the same price think of all those lovely little STM lenses one could pick up used for the R... EF-S 10-18, 18-135, 50 1.8 or 40 2.8... If full frame zoom is a must, then a used 24-105 f4 or even a well warn 24-70 2.8 can be picked up cheaper!
Really seems like the cons outweigh the pros pretty heavily with this lens. I was actually kind of interested in it due to its small size, and could have lived with the small maximum aperture, but the problems with it seem to be pretty severe. The lack of a AF/MF switch would be the final nail in the coffin for me, especially given that it's wide angle macro feature is MF only. I would hate have to switch back and forth from AF to MF in the menu! $450 really isn't that cheap for what is essentially a kit lens - I'd definitely spend the money on the 24-105 F4 instead.
I'm actually quite surprised these new RF lenses are compared to simlilar offering from sony for example. What's the use of a small compact lens if the image is so bad? Better off just buying a MFT system...for as long as we still can...
Hey Christopher, I really like your channel! I Always look for your reviews of all my future lenses! Will you be reviewing the rf 85mm f2 lens soon?I want to buy this one, but want to see your pro review before I buy it.
I don't know if you're open for suggestions but if so, I'd be very interested in a review of a couple of vintage lenses: Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f3.5 (one of the older models, there are 5 different versions iirc) Canon FD 50mm f1.4 SSC (or ne "new FD" version) I also heard lots of good things about the Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 but don't have one myself.
I would consider the lens since you can do self-portraits and some product photography. Maybe in 5 to 10 years, I will get a legacy Canon mirrorless camera.
I like the size that they made it,but really disappointing with it's f7.1...hope Tamron or sigma will come out with 24-105mm f4-5.6 at the same price point
I gotta be honest. F4 minimum aperture is quite slow by modern standards. It was already quite slow 10 years ago. Almost every kit lens in existence back dating back to the 90's had minimum apertures of 3.5 and maximum of f5.6 or f6.5 on the high end. Optics have been on a very competent for the last 20 years, and the autofocus motor and lens tabe tech is also over a decade old at this point. So what on earth is keeping lenses so expensive? Especially if they have big issues like this one does. i swear if the companies would just rerelease the older lenses with slightly better built quality and updated motors then lenses would be much more affordable in general. Also the lack of a specific purpose with the lenses is astonishing to me. You'd think that a long zoom range like this one would make it a great all around lens. But the really slow aperture makes it almost useless for low light situation unless you exclusively shoot at the widest angle. It also makes it terrible for video work because of that, despite having really good stabalization built in. So in my oppinion, removing the lens stabe, cutting the maximum zoom to 70 or 80mm and you'd probably save 100-200$ in the production. Would make for a much better value proposition. Or if you insist on making it a jack of all trade, keep the stabe, reduce the zoom range and make it a constant f4 for the same price. But the way it is now, it's a no mans land lens that just doesn't really do anything well.
Very helpful! I'm interested in an affordable lens with wide angle capabilities. After watching your video I realized this is not good for wide angle photography. Thank you!
I'm starting to think that shooting landscapes mostly in 1:1 format will be a huge boon on my choice of lenses since most of these "cheap" RF are usually very sharp from center to mid-frame. :D
I would usually get annoyed at a few Sony's low-budget lenses for having that distortion problem at wide angle. Well, here is Canon having the same issue. Seems to be more like a problem with designing mirrorless lenses. Let's wait for a Nikon-equivalent of that.
Im finding it hard to hit the buy button on "R" series body and lenses. Its feels like at the moment Canon are still trying to figure it out. This "budget" end lens will not help matters.
@@smashexentertainment676 Yes on APS-C the quality worsens. Or you can blame the smaller sensor 'becaude those have worse low light IQ; - or they have the same IQ but the lens has lower equivalent aperture,..
Thank You so much about telling me about the macro-mode, i did not know about this. Pretty weird that you have to set focus back to the normal range in order to leave the manual focus mode.
Great, thorough review thanks. Bit disappointing though. Was hoping for better performance at the wide end, even if it sacrificed a bit at the long end. I would much rather add a 100g, and $100, and have just that bit better performance. I guess Canon have to make this just bad enough to push the likes of me to the RF 24-105 (where the its the weight that bugs me most). Edit after re-watching: That 24m distortion and required correction really is poor. Should have been a 24-70!
It’s ok for the general user getting into photography. However, while it’s not a real fair comparison because of sensor size and therefore cost of the lens, I can’t help but compare it to the lumix 12-60 f3.5-5.6. Which on a m4/3 camera gives an equivalent field of view of 24-120mm at a brighter aperture of 5.6 in the telephoto and 3.5 on the wide. It’s optically great with no major flaws, stabilised, extremely cheap and it’s even dust and splash proof with a gasket at the mount. It just makes me think that perhaps the target market for this lens, being the low budget novice photographer would be better served with a small size sensor that will be able to facilitate better lenses for the same or cheaper prices.
Thanks for another great review Christopher. We know something is plainly amiss when you use the ‘shock horror’ sound effect! Would love to see a 24-105 face off to include this lens, older L (second hand option) and new L RF, just to see what extra you get for the money on this popular standard zoom range. Thanks again, and stay safe.
This lens at 24mm reminds me your review about the other convenient RF mount Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM lens. Horrible at 24mm too. Convenience, low cost and optical quality rarely go together in photography and digital image processing inside the camera compensates for that. With the cameras of smartphones that is more than frequent. At maximum 105mm focal length this lens looks really sharp form corner to corner. At 105mm even with f/7.1 there is a change for some shallow depth of field and the pincushion distortion of raw files is flattering with portraits. With poor lighting a tripod can really lower the shutter speed and permit decent ISO levels, but a tripod is never convenient with the target group of amateurs, this lens is designed for. Sony have similar full e-mount frame lenses at 24-105mm and 24-240mm. Both of them have respectable performance at 24mm.
This is more in competition with the APS-C market than anything else, both price, weight and speed wise. It's the APS-C equivalent of 16-70mm F2.7-4.7.
Thank you for this review. I am looking forward to get a Canon EOS RP and was trying to figure what lens to pair it with. Also following one of your reviews I got about one year ago a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM which I intend to keep and use it with the new Canon RP with an adapter.
Hi, great work you are doing. Which lense is better for food photography on body Canon 800d (t7i) Canon ef 50mm 1.8 stm or Canon ef-s 60mm 2.8 macro usm. Price does not matter. Tnx
@@truthseeker6804 It depends on what type of adapter. I use a Meike variable ND EF adapter on my R6MKII. It’s not twice the weight with the EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 STM. But you do get an in crease in weight. For me it’s barely noticeable. The focus is quick and uninhibited. Now, depending on what you do, adapting EF lenses may not be what you desire. My RF 50mm is slightly louder with focus than my EF 50mm STM with photos. Now both lenses are equally quiet with video. I use my gear for some photography but primarily for video / Sunday School & Bible Study lessons. th-cam.com/video/okeedXcuCjI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=HCNrhsHg3j0uZuif
Me: sees f4-7.1
**Hold Up**
maybe Canon is a bit too cocky about their camera's high-ISO capabilities
@@GungKrisna12 No one understood this comment. I got your back. f/7.1-what do they expect us to use, 2s exposure, or ISO 25,600? LMAO Yeah, no
@@mikepawlikguitar You know what is the difference between 7.1 and 5.6? The difference between ISO 800 and 1200. If you don't like it you can always buy the F4 version for 3 times the price and 2 times the weight.
@@todanrg3 Why does nobody mention that this lens has a 5 stop image stabilization. You can get that back down to iso 400 if you want. People are so close minded.
“Affordable to normal human beings” lmao
Alexander Kouris how much? 299€? ;)
Hahaha
Hahaah
People say "...that's why aliens won't come visit us" but aliens actually run this world. Lol.. my 2 cents 😅😅🤣🤣
Nah, I'll wait for the f/11-16 version
Haha
I heard there will be 100mm f.22 soon, watchout
Watch out for pin hole lenses for RF cameras! F35 to F56. You can take a direct picture of the SUN at ISO 1million and still need a 1s exposure!
🙂🙂
The Canon RF-"D" lens for gorgeous diffraction.
Without a doubt, the go to youtube channel for lens reviews!!!! Hats off! Nothing more needs to be said.
F 7.1 is too small..f5.6 at 105mm would be reasonable.
f5.6 is not a down from f4 😂
This lens is about the same as the 18-85 kit found with the crop bodies.
They're 'cropping' the lens instead of cropping the sensor because everyone wants to shoot in FF.
@@LK-ho1dg it's like a third stop of difference 😂
T 1/8 ? crazy.
Next will be a 1:11 I suppose
@Paul Jones and that hiding of distortion through firmware and software trickery is really bad taste
Despite all the limitations, this lens probably provides a great, lightweight kit for e.g. the EOS RP. The dark aperture is only a problem for low light and action photography, but people shooting in such situations would never buy it anyway. For the rest, technology of today can easily cope with it; the EVF can compensate and AF performance is very quick indeed. The tests in this video show that it is very fast, just not lightning fast as in e.g. a Nano USM lens.
Yes. It's great lens for outdoors and hiking. It also adds a wide range of macro. Landscapers and studio work rarely shoots below F8 too.
If 'speed' isn't enough, you can pair it with the RF 35.
I have an EOS RP and it's a good enough camera to deserve better lenses than this for sure. Even my 1990s 28-135mm EF lens is much faster than this, at f/3.5-5.6, and those things cost like $100. And it has in-camera correction profiles on these cameras, AND also have image stabilization.
You can use a flash for those low light situations
@@sethmoyer 2/3 of a stop is not "much faster". Not to mention the 28-135 has fairly poor image quality that requires stopping down.
Don't worry Chris, we love your yakking, adding more flavour to your already good lens image reviews.
f/40 is truly amazing, you can shoot Canon Log at ISO 800 in full sunlight at 1/50 shutter speed no need for ND filters anymore lol
and you won't even need a promist filter anymore
Everone is tired of bokeh blurry nausea.
@@winstonqin9595 😄😄😄
Ok, I made a direct comparison to the EF 24-105 STM 3.5-5.6 myself.
In the center picture quality is the same. On the edges the EF is sharper than the RF lens.
The difference in aperture is hardly noticeable. I have chosen to keep the RF lens and sell the EF version because of smaller size and leighter weight. Also with the RF lens there is not need for the adapter.
Cheers Stefan
I thought the same with the EF F4. Size and weight matters enough that I will not bring it if it gets in my way. Plus, I have all the tiny primes adapted so I never worry about wide apertures or low light. Don't forget, the IS allows you to get lower ISOs at the better apertures.
"In 19st century, we used pinholes. So, f/7.1 is far from enough" (Canon, 2020)
I tested it at fair, night shots was amazing I had no complaints, canon eos r with the kit lens 24-105mm
Theory: Canon is going to offer this lens in a kit with the EOS RP for $999 US.
Why I think this?
The RF 24-240 (list price $899.99) was getting bundled with the $999 RP already for $1499. This was about a $400 discount on the list price of the lens.
The RF 24-240 is about the same quality as the new lens, but with a much larger focal range.
The RP just dropped in price the other day to $899 on Best Buy and Amazon (and maybe elsewhere), right before the R5 press conference.
A $999 pricepoint for a modern full frame mirrorless, and a good focal range kit zoom like this is nearly unheard of. Canon could easily corner the market on the low end with this kit, and on the high end with the R5.
A full frame with a decent lens for 1000$ it's really interesting.
On used market you'll soon find them for about 600$.. this means that a modern full frame will be affordable for everybody.
@@lino100x100 yeah, might be worth upgrading from Eos m6(mark 1) with kit lens.
I've already seen it at & 1399. The RP + this lens.
You made it ! Today we saw this bundle with exactly price as you mentioned !
@@ZhigeLi Yeah, I literally just found out yesterday and ran out to buy the bundle myself. Was going to wait and get the RP + 35mm when I had a bit more money, but local best buy only had one of these bundles and it was too good of a deal to pass up.
this thing is gonna cost like 100$ on the used market in 1 or 2 years lol
I'd say by next year. This Christmas I have no doubt Canon will do a big sales blitz with this lens and the RP, and I bet it sells a ton. Then, when people realize how shite this lens is and they actually care about having a good lens, they will flood the used market trying to recoup. No different from the 18-55mm lenses that get bundled. I have two of those that never see the light of day, one that never came out of the friggin box. I never even bothered to try to sell them since they are just not worth anything and anyone that would want one already has it! LOL
@@kevindiaz3459 My first camera was a Canon 400D with the 18-55 kit lens. Unfortunately it took me a while to realise how terrible it was. With a decent lens, even a 400D can actualy take great pictures, but I didn't know that before swapping to better lenses.
Don't under-estimate used gear value though. I digged it out my old stuff box, and decided to sell it after more than 10 years...
The 400D (working well but with significant wear) was sold 100€ within 2 days.
The 18-55 (perfect condition lol, not much used) was sold 50€ within 24h, and I had a lot of contacts, I'm sure it could be sold even more than that.
Honestly I didn't even expect to sell it, but it seems that there is a market, even for old crappy entry level stuff lol
@@PAD32 kit lens are actually amazing, if u cant use it to take great pictures dont blame the lens, blame on how you see something.
@@mrinsaf Did you ever use any good lens? I think you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't say that this 18-55 is amazing LOL. I owned some gear from budget to professionnal, and also things in between, and yes, I can tell you that this lens is REALLY bad. Poor autofocus, poor optics, small aperture, no IS. I can't see anything good about it, except maybe the price. Even my mid-range smartphone is better in a lot of aspects than a kit like this.
A decent lens on a decent camera helps taking better pictures, it offers a lot more possibilities, and is just a lot more pleasant to use.
Now, can you take great pictures with a 18-55? If you don't care about image quality, yes. But there is MUCH better options, even for low price
@@PAD32 A wood screw also has a good price ;-)
Six years old 24-105mm IS STM looks to be much better lens, nevertheless, Fullframe sensor cameras just deserve standard zoom with at least f/4 anyway.
You missing a point of this lens. The lens you mentioned is much bigger. And full frame is getting into affordable category, no longer is a premium. That means we will soon see a sub $1000 brand new FF camera. So those affordable cameras will need a kit lens similar in size and price. And the 7.1 aperture at 105mm is still brighter than a 5.6 lens on APS-C, for example.
So basically what to do :
-dont buy a RF 24-105mm f.4-7.1
- buy an older EF 24-105mm f.4 L
(Little bit cheaper and better)
Yardragil LAP Agree
But way too big. A 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 is much closer in size
But the 24-105mm f4-7.1 would become their future kit lens
Why not just get the RF 24-105 f/4L - it's only $100 more than the older EF version.
Wabajak13 The 24-85 is very soft in the corners as well. I sold my copy to get a 24-105 f4. It’s not perfect either but at least it has OIS and longer zoom
Everyone forgets, if you use this lens on a full frame body, you get incredible shallow DOF compared to any crop sensor or 1 inch compact camera. The "slowness" does not matter as much because of this factor. Another complaint is that at those smaller apertures, you will need to increase ISO, thereby increasing noise. That's not 100% correct because with the image stabilization, you can get lower shutter speeds to lower the ISO assuming your subject can be stationary. Since this lens is not a professional lens, you do not need 105mm at F2. A portrait at over 10feet away an 100mm F2, only the eyes would be in focus. It would be better to keep an 85 1.8 or 100 F2 around for that purpose. But if you are needing a zoom lens, you are probably not shooting portraits all day long anyways. Wide open at 24mm is not necessary (if that is the worse performance of the lens) because F4.5 is essentially the same. The wide focal lens doesn't need a high shutter speed to prevent blurring and with the 5 stop image stabilization, it doesn't matter. What really matters is that this lens is one of the sharpest camera branded kit lenses that I have ever seen since the beginning of digital photography. I am not kidding. I have been using a 15 year old 35mm prime for ages and I cannot say that this zoom lens is a dog. For the purpose it is made for (travel, convenience), this is an incredibly good lens. It's a full generation above any kit lens from S, N or even F. As everyone has said a million times, the only camera that matters will the the one you bring. I can tell you, not many people are bringing the F2 zooms or even F4 zooms for that matter. I will only bring this zoom and 1 or 2 primes and my Samsung Ultra (AI is getting very, very good). There is no need these days to dabble in a crop sensor. There is no more need to worry about video (your phone can already do it very well). There is no time to use all this crap.
I bought this lens like 5 days ago (together with an EOS R). I found this channel two days ago, I checked out the reviews of all the expensive RF lenses. Yesterday, I decided to search if you had made a review on this lens, but I only found your review on the 35mm prime. You loved that one though so I got my hopes up that I also had a good lens. And today I saw this video... Well rip me I guess lmao. Thank you so much for the awesome review though!
Should still be returnable then. Good luck!
@@ekevanderzee9538 Thank you, luckily they are even open on the holiday tomorrow (gathering from your username I think you know which one I'm talking about)! I'll make a call to them than. I checked out the website of the store and if I had bought the bundle of the body and the L 24-105 mm lens, it wouldn't even be such a huge difference between what I now paid. I'm wondering if they let me trade in this almost new lens with a small amount of money for the L lens :O
This lens is absolute trash, especially for the EOS R, don't waste your money on this, buy the RF 24-105 f/4L.
The RF 35mm is SIGNIFICANTLY better than this cheap shit.
I was thinking to buy the kit too, now I will not buy with this lense
For the average consumer that lens will be fine, Canon needs that kind of lens to be available for kits and frankly TH-cam reviewers are all jaded due to too much reviewing, so they don't connect with average consumers in terms of their knowledge and expectations. So, consumers of the average type will be fine with it, and will enjoy it, especially outside and on trips, and it will keep the costs down for them as well. Glad they are going with less expensive lenses, and besides plenty of third party people will be after making many lenses of various quality for the RF mount. Think of how far he had to enlarge the image to see the performance, most people will never do that, just camera mavens, and they are not typical of consumers, for them, they can shell out thousands in search of perfection, which is nice for us all. But a range of quality and performance is needed for the market, otherwise the RF mount won't make it. Think of what Canon Rebels sell for including a kit, and the lower volume that will be coming due to the "thing" - Best wishes!
I think efs lens are better in price performance. a cheap 24.70 or 28.80 4 to 5.6 should be easier to make at a good price.
Wouldn’t average consumers buy an aps-c camera? Full frame cameras aren’t cheap for the casual shooter. You can expect full frame buyers to know their apertures and at that point you’re giving them the option between experiencing a blackout or spending 3k.
Btw, the RF mound as a product should be profitable on its own. Subtracting from entry level aps-c cameras is bad business at best and completely illogical in general.
I have one of these on an EOS R and it works great. The image quality is more than adequate if you're not going above 15x12. It is well balanced on the camera and makes a great travel camera outfit. And yes, I do have a set of L-series lenses and in real-world use you have to take into account the weight of extra glass. The f7.1 issue is not a problem
@@hopkinsroger f7.1 is not an ISO problem with 5 step IS. It is a subject to background issue. Just get closer or have the subject come closer.
Wow, Canon figured out how to cram a fisheye, a macro, and a travel zoom into one lens!
😂
Nah, I did a DIY version by cutting the bottom off of a milk bottle.
Hi Chris, this is my go-to site for lens reviews, and again an excellent informative, balanced and concise review of this lens. As many have stated this lens's cons (f7.1; poor image quality) outweigh it's pros (price; size) for me. The EOS R, RP and forthcoming R5 require top quality glass to exploit their full potential, this lens doesn't do that imho.
At this point, I can't tell if Canon cares about their RF lenses as a whole like it seemed like they did or just the pro end of the spectrum. The 24-240 was _horrific_ on the wide end and the only leg up this one has is the fact that it covers more of the full frame circle. They claimed their giant mount meant they could make faster, smaller lenses. They should have proven that and did Sony's 28-70 better than them.
years later I'm still chasing my tail on this topic - I have the 15-35 F2.8 Rf and the 100-400ii.... on occasion I would like to have something to cover that 35-100mm gap - but! It seems like the only "decent" option is the F4 24-105 RF... I'm just not thrilled about the price
@@07wrxtr1 And now you see half of my problem with them. The good native options for that focal range are expensive, and the cheaper ones have some glaring issues that make them worth avoiding.
This is why I'm such an advocate for cheap adapters and vintage lenses.
@@RealRaynedance Yeah maybe I can find a good copy of the old 24-105 EF F4 L ??
@@07wrxtr1 Or some manual focus primes from the 70s and 80s from various brands if you don't need autofocus or could live without a zoom. Only you know whether you need those two things or not. Personal preference for me, I prefer covering 35 to 85 with primes.
I sold this lens, but repurchased this lens at £180 2nd hand. It ain't perfect, but it's still better than smartphone. It's reasonably well worth it.
Haha, I just got an R8 after buying all these Sony bodies. Sony bodies are good, their lenses are not. Canon was right to release this lens and a bunch of small primes. NOBODY wants to carry an "SLR" bulky body anymore. With a small Canon full frame body (RP, R8) this is what I am complementing my Samsung Ultra with. It doesn't have to be one way or the other. The full frame captures all the details. If it looks good on my phone I take another with the Canon.
I bought this lens after running around on the mountains over my holidays with 35mm f1.8 macro IS RF, wide, but I found that zoom would be helpful, the dark end of this lens is not an issue if it`s used in full sun landscape... sharpnes on the corners... well, I like to shoot panoramic photos merged from 13-30 expositions, one photo on each area of the view, sharpness in the middle is enough, the resoiult is always cropped to 1920px on longer edge so it`s sharp enough for that resolution, that`s my way. Comparing: the lens is great for daily walk, landscapes, travel... bot for photo sessions, weddings and other photography I have primes and thios particular one 24-105 is always at home when I`m photographing those other things.
Exactly, plus a lot of EF primes are really excellent and cheap right now. I still use my 35mm F2 ALL the time. This zoom lens is just as fun as when I had the F4 version almost 20 years ago but the body and lens now weighs as little as the lens itself!
Ok Canon, we're gonna wait for the Sigma Art RF lineup!!!
Sigma Art FTW. Love their prime lenses.
Hopefully soon! Unfortunately, Canon RF mount is closed to third party. Yes, Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, etc could possibly reverse engineer it but it wouldn't be as good as native. Reasons, why I shoot with Sony right now, their mount is opened to everyone!
Canon is shooting themselves in the foot with the closed RF mount. No resources for inexpensive 3rd party lenses. Canon stop trying to be Apple!
Eh?? These are totally different lens types, purposes and market segments.
This is a $400 full-frame lens 24-105mm with 5 stops IBIS that weights less than 400 grams.
Anyone who thinks that this lens is mediocre for the price should get their brain checked.
I don't think it is mediocre, I think it is total GARBAGE!
Anyone who spends $2000 - $5000 on a Pro FF Camera body only to use a $400 garbage lens on it, needs to get their head checked!
@@-WhizzBang- How much is a Canon RP? Less than $1000. This lens not meant to be for $5000 Pro FF cameras. Not everyone wants or needs $1000+ lenses. This lens combined with a FF sensor is still brigher than the usual 5.6 APS-C lens. For the price it's a very good lens!
If you want better, get the F4 variant for 3 times the price or the 24-70 2.8 for 5 times the price!
@@todanrg3 the Canon RP is also a piece of junk. I have used this lens, and in my opinion, it is a cheap piece of garbage. You get what you pay for, which is WHY you will never see any real photographers use this lens for anything other than a paper weight! But hey, if it works for you, then great! I just hope nobody is paying you for any photography work!
@@-WhizzBang- Everything is garbage for couch pro's like you. Go buy $5000 cameras then. "Real" photographers are not defined by the price of the gear
Have taken some excellent pictures with this surprisingly low priced lens.
In your test image, near the lower-left corner was taken in Portmeirion Village, Cornwall, correct? That was where the 1967 British television series "The Prisoner" was filmed. I'm told you can stay there. Did you stay there to take that shot?
One of the best reviews of a product, you make sensible comparisons, easy for the viewer to digest, most of all you clarify with facts one can see, many thanks.
And the nominee for the "worst RF lens ever" is... The Canon 24-105 f/4-7.1 !
The 24-240 was a good candidate too, but at least it has an impressive zoom range, so I think it may be interesting for some people.
But here I don't see who's gonna buy a lens like this. It needed at least a good image quality...
If money is the limitation factor, you better go with a smaller sensor camera and buy a decent lens...
it may become their next kit lens
Gung Krisna still we’re talking about full frame and a kit lens for a bodies that are likely to start around the $1500 mark. I would argue that people buying into the RF System do have experience with better aps-c lenses than the kit lens they are going to get.
Lol, I'm stuck with it since it was bundled with the RP I got for a deal. Body only was 899 and bundle was 999, so I effectively paid $100 for the lens... For that price I'd say it's alright, it's actually pretty good for video. Saving up for the RF 24-105 f/4 now.
@@philsbruno and yeah, that lens is now one of the kit lenses for EOS R6 (besides the more expensive 24-105mm F4L kit)
@@LinhNguyen-im4uu for 100 bucks this lens is a steal. 😁
Good to see Canon putting some more affordable non L RF lens options on the market, shame about it only being 7.1 end at the telephoto end though, I managed to get a good condition EF 24-105 L F4 for my Canon EOS RP for £300 & I'd be advising my friends to do the same given that this is priced at £450 in the UK. Great review as always Christopher 👍
I was going to do that given my favorite lens when I had my 5D was that 24-105L, but then I remembered that that Mk I lens was not really that sharp and even at F4, the DOF was very, very shallow compared to any crop sensor or 1 inch compact (The original 5D having terribly slow focus, too). Being that it would be 1 inch even longer with the EF-R adapter and it was as big and heavy as I remembered, I tried this first. Plus, I have all the primes in the focal lengths I like, so who can complain when the total (body and lens) weight is at about 2 pounds. The difference between now and back then is the smaller bodies, better image stabilization and much, much better optics on the 7.1 lens.
Since you have handled both, do you prefer this one, or would you prefer spending the $200 extra for the 24-240mm?
Is it really that dark for a kit lenses? If it was an APSC, it would translate into 15-65mm f/2.5-4.4 - not that bad, is it?
The F-stop would still be F4-7.1. That doesn't change. The FL would be somewhere around 15-65mm, that is pretty close. From a technical point of view, crop factor also doesn't change the focal length, but rather the effective angle of view. People express it as FL since it seems easier to understand it that way, but then, I think that is really only true for those that have the knowledge of what FL is most useful in a given scenario for a full frame camera. Then, when compared to crop factor, that knowledge tells them what FL to use. It's more confusing than it has to be...
It's still a little bit better than a crop kit.
While F7.1 will always be F7.1 in terms of light-gathering, keep in mind that FF shoots higher ISO better than a crop.
So, it's still right to assume the same F4.4 performance on a crop altough not always correct. It depends on sensor quality for the light.
With an infinite depth of field. And that's why many people want to try a "proper" camera instead of their phone. I guess we'll see many RP's on Ebay soon with all that disappointment coming up.
Kevin Diaz I’ll try to explain it again. You have two DIFFERENT cameras with two DIFFERENT lenses. One is full frame (FF) camera with a lens 105mm, Aperture set to 7.1, ISO 500, shutter speed let’s say 1/100s. The other camera is a 1.6 crop (APSC) with a 65mm lens, aperture set to 4.4, ISO 200, shutter speed 1/100s. If you take pictures with those two cameras and settings mentioned above, you’ll get the exact same RESULT (same composition, same depth of field, same exposure and even the noise level is the same on same generation sensors). This is just physics, this is how it works and it’s been proven and you can try it too (people tend to argue until they try it). So, there’s really no difference between APSC and FF if you had equal performing lenses (which would be also equal sized). Just a side point: the real difference whether to chose APSC or FF system is the lens selection (for example, you can get 85mm f/1.2 for a FF but there’s no 50mm f/0.75 for an APSC system) and the fact that FF camera base ISO is usually 100 whereas APSC camera base ISO is also 100 but it should be translated to ~40 for the same results. Alright, after that theory, back to my point: People get mad about a FF lens f/7.1. But they are fine with APSC f/5.6 lenses that give you even worse results... Once again, we talk about FF lenses on FF cameras, APSC lenses on APSC cameras
@@og7650 You are 100% right!
But people like to rant.
Even 6.5 would be acceptable. But 7.1 is too much.
Man, 6.3 vs 7.1 it´s about 1/3 of a stop less... It´s the difference between shooting at ISO 1050 instead of 800, so not that much. But if you said f5.6, I would agreed with you :P
Even a logical argument would be acceptable, but this is too much.
I think this is a great option. I personally mostly shoot primes but it's sometimes nice just to have a zoom in the bag to cover a wider area. The fact that is slow doesn't matter so much if you're carrying primes as well.
Exactly, Canon did what Sony did not do. Release a bunch of small good enough primes. Like candy for photographers. I only use the 35F2 and will add the 28RF pancake for ultimate portability. And this lens is sharp enough to actually say it's better than my cellphone. Many lenses are not. Even the pancake 40mm2.8 adapted is good, but a slow focuser. Many of those tiny primes I rarely use 50, 85, 100 can all be adapted and are excellent lenses.
Nicely said. I use this 24-105 f7.1 on my R8 as a very nice walkaround lens. I have the RF 16 2.8, 28 2.8, 35 1.8, 86 2.0 from which I will select one or two as complements to the 7.1 based on what/where I am shooting. But often the 7.1 just stays on the body. (Have the R10 I use for wildlife with other lenses but that is another story).
This is, for me, a 18-55mm for full frame, though with a much better focal length range. I would expect it to deliver slightly sharper pictures with more clarity on the R, than the 18-55mm on APS-C.
Hello Christopher,
I have a canon 24-85 ( featured on your channel) and an older EF canon 70-210, EF 50mm 1.8 and a Tamron SP 15-30. I have a RP camera. Should I go for the RF 24-105 or RF 24-70 or 24-240 in this review or RF 24-105 4-7.1,?
I am thinking of upgrading later to a R5 or something but maybe it is too much to spend USD 2500 on a 24-70 lens when the RP is USD 1300 at the most?
I have all that just like you. For the lenses I rarely use, the adapter will just be fine. But for the most compact and highest (and cheapest option), I went RF 7.1. It's way sharper than the old 24-85 and half the weight or more than the rest. If you understand FF, IS, ISO and apertures then 7.1 may not be an issue.
Thank you Chris for one more clear and concise review! Always one of the first if not the first to review a new lens. I was wondering if you could add in the future samples that show bokeh and sunstars quality as these are determining factors for an image's native technical quality along with the lens' optics.
Was hoping for this lens to have near optical quality to the more expensive f4 L. But it turns out the slow aperture, lack of weather sealing and dedicated control ring and missing hood and bag weren't enough factors to keep the lens cheap, small and light. Optics are less than stellar at the wide end. Oh well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but vignette and corner blur should not be a big problem when mounted on an APS-C sensor, right? How do you recommend it for R50 as a second lens to 18-45mm rfs? Planning to get 16mm and 50mm primes as well. Thanks
What do you think a new enthusiast to the photography would have a happier time with: the 24-105 f4-7.1 and buying the ef/rf adaptor or the paying for the 24-240 kit? The person is mainly training their eye and mind to be well versed in taking pictures of their growing family.
Hi christopher.
With your videos on the sharpness chart section.
Would you say from taking screenshots and comparing side by side to other lenses i can get an accurate measure of sharpness comparisons?
If its an older video on 1080 i put newer one on 1080 to compare to make it fair..
So i put two screenshots side by side from your vids and compare lense sharpness
Usually you use adjectives to describe sharpness. Would be cool if you had a numbering rating of overall sharpness from 100 being full frame and beat lense combo youve ever seen down etc
And im assuming body of camera makes almost no difference
Is it wise to go by that method you think
You can already compare image quality using my videos :-)
@@christopherfrost thanks for replying.
I have watched yours and distin abbot review of the samyang rf 85mm 1.4. You both love that lense.
For its price what an opportunity for a regular budget to come close to the best lenses.
ive thrown all out the sensible canon all rounders out window and ill get that as my only lense. For a while
Do you think Canon's old discontinued 24-85 mm would outperform this one in the wide range? Would be interesting to see that old gem tested on the R platform against the new generation- and I assume the lens correction profiles will work on the newer cameras too...
What about Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 XR Di LD - you can find it very cheap used
Got a Canon refurbished one for a bit more than $100. Has not been using it much until recently finally found a good use case - under daytime outdoors where a large aperture cannot be used anyway without ND.
Is it just me or? When the two lenses were placed on the table with their rear cap off. @1:54
What's your question?
7:56 I remember this sound effect in your RF24-240 review lol
Makes me really appreciate my APS-C 18-200 with f6.3 on the 200 end.. I suppose the 7.1 is the price to pay for a similarly compact full frame super(ish) zoom
8:19 How much at the wide end do you lose after all lens corrections have been applied?
This lens is almost in APS-C territory :)
I wonder if the 8 Stop IBIS in the R5 will help ?
aperture isn't a problem only at noon... any other scenario will be like you've forgot to take the ND filter off the lens.
Atleast lenses with forgotten nd filters have better bokeh 🤣
Hey Chris love your videos. Everyone says IS can help you drag the shutter. Have u done any testing with either Sony ibis or canon is to see how much more the IS gives you if u keep iso and f stop the constant? I looked and didn’t see if there is any calculations that incorporates this setting.
I'm sure this lens will go down in price, but at the moment, adapting ef glass sounds like a better idea. Also, I thought that f 6.3 would be the ridiculous new normal for z and rf superzooms, but f7.1 is kind of staggering. My mft kit telephoto is f11 equivalent, which isn't much darker.
Regarding your prediction for a price drop: 3 years on price remains the same $399.00 USD and is currently on backorder.
@efreutel With inflation, maybe it is a drop in real terms lol. But lens selection has improved on mirrorless and the used market is more active thanks to the elapsed time.
Hello, where can I download the primer to test the definition of the lenses, thank you very much and greetings from Argentina
Hey Chris, is the Tamron 70-180 review coming? :)
WOAHHHHH I almost bought a EOS r with this kit lens thinking it was the 24-70 F4 L!!!!! That was close!
Same lol
Sir .. would you recommend this for birthday photography or small event photographies (not wedding) or Architectural photography?
This came as a kit lens with my RP and.. well, it has a ton to be desired. 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 has just under 5x zoom. 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.
With all 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 it's 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 (this 24-105 has even more obv), produce good enough image for the sensor, and most importantly, affordable.
This makes me think of the future of Canon EOS R/RF line up. I can see two things, first and most absolutely, this variable aperture 24-105mm would came generations after generations with some improvements along the way as kit lens, and second (depending on the popularity of Canon R system) they will be making an RF 24-70 variable aperture as the cheaper kit lens option like the EF-S 18-55 we all know (and love?).
Hello, thank you for doing this video. Can you please comment on the focus motor in terms of noise? Thank you.
Considering this is a beginner’s lens, for the same price think of all those lovely little STM lenses one could pick up used for the R... EF-S 10-18, 18-135, 50 1.8 or 40 2.8... If full frame zoom is a must, then a used 24-105 f4 or even a well warn 24-70 2.8 can be picked up cheaper!
Maybe Canon is too cocky about their camera's high ISO capabilities that they made a very dark aperture lens
Also:
7:57 => NANI!?
Really seems like the cons outweigh the pros pretty heavily with this lens. I was actually kind of interested in it due to its small size, and could have lived with the small maximum aperture, but the problems with it seem to be pretty severe. The lack of a AF/MF switch would be the final nail in the coffin for me, especially given that it's wide angle macro feature is MF only. I would hate have to switch back and forth from AF to MF in the menu! $450 really isn't that cheap for what is essentially a kit lens - I'd definitely spend the money on the 24-105 F4 instead.
Maybe use it as a sunshine lens. Pity about the sharpness then, though.
I'm actually quite surprised these new RF lenses are compared to simlilar offering from sony for example. What's the use of a small compact lens if the image is so bad? Better off just buying a MFT system...for as long as we still can...
thankyou - enough for me to rule this one out for my needs,
Hey Christopher, I really like your channel! I Always look for your reviews of all my future lenses! Will you be reviewing the rf 85mm f2 lens soon?I want to buy this one, but want to see your pro review before I buy it.
Brilliantly deciphered, CF.
I don't know if you're open for suggestions but if so, I'd be very interested in a review of a couple of vintage lenses:
Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f3.5 (one of the older models, there are 5 different versions iirc)
Canon FD 50mm f1.4 SSC (or ne "new FD" version)
I also heard lots of good things about the Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 but don't have one myself.
Im thinking to use this for realestate photography. Is that a good choice? Its come with Rp
I would consider the lens since you can do self-portraits and some product photography. Maybe in 5 to 10 years, I will get a legacy Canon mirrorless camera.
So which lens is best for wide angle photos ? I'm about to get the R5 , which lens you recommend ? For videos and photos. Thanks
If you just want wide angle pictures then the 15-35 is excellent, and the 24-105mm f/4 'L' lens is better than this one, too
I like the size that they made it,but really disappointing with it's f7.1...hope Tamron or sigma will come out with 24-105mm f4-5.6 at the same price point
I believe Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is a lot sharper than this kit lens. I wonder why Canon did not convert old EF 28-135 to RF mount.
No. RF one is sharper. The IBIS + IS compensated the aperture. IMO it is better than EF 28-135
I gotta be honest. F4 minimum aperture is quite slow by modern standards. It was already quite slow 10 years ago. Almost every kit lens in existence back dating back to the 90's had minimum apertures of 3.5 and maximum of f5.6 or f6.5 on the high end. Optics have been on a very competent for the last 20 years, and the autofocus motor and lens tabe tech is also over a decade old at this point. So what on earth is keeping lenses so expensive? Especially if they have big issues like this one does. i swear if the companies would just rerelease the older lenses with slightly better built quality and updated motors then lenses would be much more affordable in general.
Also the lack of a specific purpose with the lenses is astonishing to me. You'd think that a long zoom range like this one would make it a great all around lens. But the really slow aperture makes it almost useless for low light situation unless you exclusively shoot at the widest angle. It also makes it terrible for video work because of that, despite having really good stabalization built in. So in my oppinion, removing the lens stabe, cutting the maximum zoom to 70 or 80mm and you'd probably save 100-200$ in the production. Would make for a much better value proposition. Or if you insist on making it a jack of all trade, keep the stabe, reduce the zoom range and make it a constant f4 for the same price. But the way it is now, it's a no mans land lens that just doesn't really do anything well.
Very helpful! I'm interested in an affordable lens with wide angle capabilities. After watching your video I realized this is not good for wide angle photography. Thank you!
I'm starting to think that shooting landscapes mostly in 1:1 format will be a huge boon on my choice of lenses since most of these "cheap" RF are usually very sharp from center to mid-frame. :D
1:1 gets rid of the corners so any lens will be awesome.
So.. Chris are you going to review nikon lens?
They're coming next week :-)
Hi could you please suggest a not very expensive alternative to Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM for RP.
I would usually get annoyed at a few Sony's low-budget lenses for having that distortion problem at wide angle. Well, here is Canon having the same issue. Seems to be more like a problem with designing mirrorless lenses. Let's wait for a Nikon-equivalent of that.
Hello Christopher, could u give your review on canon 24-105 f4 L lens ?
Im finding it hard to hit the buy button on "R" series body and lenses. Its feels like at the moment Canon are still trying to figure it out. This "budget" end lens will not help matters.
Wait so if it is not good enough for FF, then it is like 40-170 mm f5.6-f10 in an APSC camera no?
The f-stop as light transmission doesn't multiply on APS-C. And there are currently no crop sensor RF cameras available.
@@smashexentertainment676 Yes on APS-C the quality worsens. Or you can blame the smaller sensor 'becaude those have worse low light IQ; - or they have the same IQ but the lens has lower equivalent aperture,..
Whats a good affordable rf mount lens for video then, and if none then with the Ef adapter which lens would you recommend around the 35mm range
Hey Chris, btw you didn't show us how it looks like to stop down in macro mode
Thank You so much about telling me about the macro-mode, i did not know about this. Pretty weird that you have to set focus back to the normal range in order to leave the manual focus mode.
Got this with my EOS-R and wasn't too impressed. It would never lock on at 105... maybe my copy is defective. Regardless, I hardly use it.
Great, thorough review thanks. Bit disappointing though. Was hoping for better performance at the wide end, even if it sacrificed a bit at the long end. I would much rather add a 100g, and $100, and have just that bit better performance. I guess Canon have to make this just bad enough to push the likes of me to the RF 24-105 (where the its the weight that bugs me most). Edit after re-watching: That 24m distortion and required correction really is poor. Should have been a 24-70!
I actually think it’s an alright lens when you need smaller, lighter options yet with a good zoom range
It’s ok for the general user getting into photography. However, while it’s not a real fair comparison because of sensor size and therefore cost of the lens, I can’t help but compare it to the lumix 12-60 f3.5-5.6. Which on a m4/3 camera gives an equivalent field of view of 24-120mm at a brighter aperture of 5.6 in the telephoto and 3.5 on the wide. It’s optically great with no major flaws, stabilised, extremely cheap and it’s even dust and splash proof with a gasket at the mount.
It just makes me think that perhaps the target market for this lens, being the low budget novice photographer would be better served with a small size sensor that will be able to facilitate better lenses for the same or cheaper prices.
Thanks for another great review Christopher. We know something is plainly amiss when you use the ‘shock horror’ sound effect! Would love to see a 24-105 face off to include this lens, older L (second hand option) and new L RF, just to see what extra you get for the money on this popular standard zoom range. Thanks again, and stay safe.
Yes. If you ever played Metal Gear Solid on the 1995 Playstation, it'll be familiar.
Please do the comparison between RF70-200 f2.8 vs EF70-200 f2.8 III with EF-RF Adapter
I think I'll stick with my 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 as my "beater" lens. Or just save up for the f/4 version.
There's still a f/4 kit
This lens at 24mm reminds me your review about the other convenient RF mount Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM lens. Horrible at 24mm too. Convenience, low cost and optical quality rarely go together in photography and digital image processing inside the camera compensates for that. With the cameras of smartphones that is more than frequent.
At maximum 105mm focal length this lens looks really sharp form corner to corner. At 105mm even with f/7.1 there is a change for some shallow depth of field and the pincushion distortion of raw files is flattering with portraits.
With poor lighting a tripod can really lower the shutter speed and permit decent ISO levels, but a tripod is never convenient with the target group of amateurs, this lens is designed for.
Sony have similar full e-mount frame lenses at 24-105mm and 24-240mm. Both of them have respectable performance at 24mm.
Even though the lens is slow, wouldn't bumping up the ISO compensate?
This is more in competition with the APS-C market than anything else, both price, weight and speed wise.
It's the APS-C equivalent of 16-70mm F2.7-4.7.
Not in terms of light gathering capability.
WAIT- flipping the switch to manual focus on lens is not eNough? you also have to go into camera settings? why is it so complicated?
Thank you for this review. I am looking forward to get a Canon EOS RP and was trying to figure what lens to pair it with. Also following one of your reviews I got about one year ago a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM which I intend to keep and use it with the new Canon RP with an adapter.
Great review! Thank you!
Thank you for reviewing affordable gear!
Show me indoor images.....???
Hi, great work you are doing. Which lense is better for food photography on body Canon 800d (t7i) Canon ef 50mm 1.8 stm or Canon ef-s 60mm 2.8 macro usm. Price does not matter. Tnx
I'd go for the 50mm STM, definitely
@@christopherfrost Thank you very much
At the price of this, you’re better off paying a little more for the 24-105 3.5-5.6 stm with the EF adapter
This would be sharper and lightweight without adapter. Also better IS and would likely focus fast and has control ring
You’re very correct and there is no issue with focus speed or weight.
@@lb7144 lens plus adapter would be twice the weight. and you cant know AF speed until you try both. this is faster.
@@truthseeker6804 It depends on what type of adapter. I use a Meike variable ND EF adapter on my R6MKII. It’s not twice the weight with the EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 STM.
But you do get an in crease in weight. For me it’s barely noticeable. The focus is quick and uninhibited. Now, depending on what you do, adapting EF lenses may not be what you desire. My RF 50mm is slightly louder with focus than my EF 50mm STM with photos. Now both lenses are equally quiet with video. I use my gear for some photography but primarily for video / Sunday School & Bible Study lessons.
th-cam.com/video/okeedXcuCjI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=HCNrhsHg3j0uZuif
Its F2 to F3.5 on MFT which is Amazing!
Don’t try to reason with MFT-Folks, they are in denial when it comes to physics
Would this lens be good for stop motion?
My Eos R would cry if I put this lens in front of the sensor..
What lense do you use for your eos r?
I got the R6 with this lens it’s pretty awesome. Takes nice sharp photos. Don’t need an ND filter since f7.1. Pretty cool