Thank you all for your support. Couldn't get some good side by side examples with my leg being wrecked and my son finally arrived but I still wanted to get this out to you all. Hoping all is well with you and sending you all my best! See you all in a couple of weeks!
I went with the 24-105/4 because I figured with the high iso ability of the R6 I could afford to lose that stop of light. I've been REALLY happy with it. It's funny, because when I'm around home(local parks, on walks, etc.) I almost never use it. When I'm on vacation, it's practically glued to the camera. For capturing a place I've never been before, it's an amazing lens.
I found that, with DXO Photolab noise reduction, I could shoot up to iso 25600 and still get good images, so low light indoors wasn't a problem for me.
I’m definitely thinking of getting the 24-105mm just because it covers all the focal lengths I need. 35mm 50mm 85mm 100mm Plus I mostly do events. Only worried about its low light performance.
I've found that the extra 35mm of reach is more useful for me than the extra light-gathering and shallow depth of field provided by apertures wider than f/4. (I've got primes for when I need more of those things.) This was a problem for me when I was using the 5D4 because the EF 24-105 was not a sharp lens, but the RF model solved that when I switched to the EOS R and R6. The lighter weight and smaller size are also welcome.
Hi. I hade the same experience with the EF24-105mkII , I did not find it sharp enough so I sold it. Maybe I had a bad copy. Now with the R5 im debating with myself if to get the RF24-70 or the RF24-105. its for Landscape so I dont need the 2,8 (and I have 1,4 primes for low light situations) My concern is if the 24-105 may suffer for diffraction more than the 24-70 at f11-f16.? Anything you notice ? Cheers from Sweden //Mikael
@@mikaelhylander6321 I have used both extensively, and the RF is much sharper than the EF. To me, it seems that the RF 24-105 is on par with the EF 24-70 f/2.8. I admit that I have not compared diffraction at those apertures between those two lenses.
@@DaneRThomas OK, thanks for take the time to answer. I will try find the 24-105 used to try it out, then it pretty much money back if I sell it again. But I think I would keep it. As well as for you I rather have + 35mm, than 2,8. I have already RF15-35 2,8. Superb lens.
I dont know if you will read this but I have a canon 90d right now and am looking to upgrade in the future so im doing research oh what I need to prioritize, so I do portraits, nature and wildlife with a little bit of product photography, I'm thinking of getting the r5 for the ability to crop in if I need for wildlife and im thinking my first rf lens is going to be the 24-105 I already have a tameron 24-70 2.8 and a 16-35 f4 and I see on my crop censor that I seem to stick to 35mm or 50mm full frame equivalent, so with nature I don't need to have the low aperture but after I get the 24-105 I'm looking at the 100-500 L lens that looks good and if I want/need to put a 1.4 teleconverter on I can and not loose sharpness. But I'm still trying to convince my self to not spend to much money since I don't make alot from photography on the side right now but I'm marketing my self and trying to get known. Thanks for the video
Hi Steven, at retirement I’m definitely not “starting out” but what I can add is that I’ve had the two 24-105 4 L’s initially in the EF mount and now the RF version and found it, as you mentioned, incredibly versatile. Something I’d add is that for travel if you want to take one decent body and one lens this is it. Having said that if I was starting out doing events especially weddings (as I was “back in the day”) the 24-70 2.8 L would be top of my list, bodies change but good glass lasts a long time 😀 In NZ the price difference is about NZ$2000 ! Really fair review and comments I thought 😀 Cheers Chris
If you took the same picture at F4 using the 24-70 2.8 lens and the 24-105 would the quality/sharpness be better on the 2.8 lens because of the larger/better glass?
Hello Steven. So Im an old man just taking the plunge to learn how to create greta images using still photographs. I will be shooting wildlife and landscapes. Just ordered a Canon R6 MK II body. I m going to go with the 24-105 f.4... A prime 35mm 1.8 and a prime 400mm. Your comments helped me greatly. Hey be patient with the leg. I ve had 3 knee ops and it does heel up..
Thank you for the great information and insight. I am a hobbyist photographer where my main subjects are birds and wild animals. If money was not an concern, I would purchase the fastest lens available. Never the less, I have the RF 24-105 f/4 L and the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 L. These lens are great for travel as will, where I generally just use the RF 24-105.
This review is exactly what i was looking for! I think you're the only person on the internet who actually has experience with both lenses and can articulate the advantages/disadvantages of both. Thank you
I'm just getting back into photography. When I was in it last I had a really nice film camera, a Minolta 7xi. It was a huge upgrade at the time from the old cheap cameras I learned on, although I've won a photo contest on both. From there, the digital world took over and I just had point and shoots and I've been dying to get back in and I'm facing the decision we all must make...2.8 or 4? I lean towards the f4's because the others are so damn heavy! Plan on getting a Canon R6 mark2 body. I've always shot a lot of reptiles, being a keeper/breeder all my life, and a lot of back rooms of zoos and inside reptile keepers facilities, and animals in general so I'm getting the 100mm Macro 2.8 for sure for close ups and a 70-200 for telephoto - I'm in pest control in Charleston, SC and I'm all over this place and it is beautiful and see things all the time that would be great to photograph. So I want a good outdoors/landscapes and 'places' lens for everyday. Thinking a 15-35 f2.8 for that end of things, indoors and outdoors, the 24-105 f4 for a 'stay on the camera mostly' lens, also indoors outdoors, and a 70-200 f4, along with the macro would be a great group for me. I've got a friend in Costa Rica I like to go see. Awesome opportunities there. I'm thinking if there is one place to splurge on the 2.8, it should be the wide angle lens...agree? Would love to hear back. Thanks and Love the channel!
I have a lens assemblage very similar to what you outline in your post. Although the RF 15-35 2.8 lens is a fantastic lens to bring to Costa Rica based solely on the results it gives, it is quite heavy. There may be a better option for travel, like this RF 24-105 f4. The RF 15-35 2.8 has given me stunning photos and would likely give you dream shots of sunsets down there. Though your post is a year old and you have likely been and gone on your trip, I’d love to hear what you brought.
I Started out with a EF 70-200mm f2.8 with the adapter on a canon R10. Im currently shooting High school basketball. Im just starting this journey and Ive been trying to figure out which lens to go to next. As im starting to get more people intereseted in doing senior pictures and different types of photo shoot.
I got back into photography intending to focus on actor headshots and studio shoots but I found myself fascinated with street and street portraiture photography. I had a 24-240mm f4-6.3 that I bought used along with my used EOS RP. I snatched up the 50mm 1.8 as my first prime and as a way to taste that sweet fast lens boca goodness on the cheap. Loved it, so was all set to grab the 35mm 1.8 STM, the 35 being the bread and butter for many established street photographers. But the camera shop had a used 24-105mm f4 L-series and I realized I had a chance to own an L for the first time and set myself up to take real quality headshots and have a fitting lens ready for when I upgrade to an R5. I also wanted my street portraits to sing. The result of all this was that I am happy I went with the 24 to 105 L over a 35mm. I can emulate the classic 35mm style of my idols while also tasting some of the 85mm eye auto focus style that's popular on IG. When I get somebody willing to pose for a portrait session, I can get wide and long shots for a nice variety. I'm still going to be getting the 35mm in the future as a street enthusiast, but I am very happy I went with the 24-105 L when I could. The f2.8 is attractive but this all leads to my main point: I never shoot street below f5.6. I always want the context. Blurs are useless to me. I'm always at f11 or 16 or maybe 8 if I'm hurting for light, but I have no need for 2.8 and definitely no need to pay for it. The 85mm street guys shoot wide open for snappy stollen portraits but that's not me right now.
I agree! A 35-85mm lens would be amazing! I’ve also always said 50-105mm, or even a 50-135mm. Sigma did the 50-100mm f1.8 already 10 years ago but that was for aps-c sensor I thought for sure canon would make a lens similar. Portraits photographers love to travel light and compact too!
Nice video! I got my R with the 24-105 f4. I was considering getting the 24-70 f2.8, but I think I will keep the f4 and get those beautiful Canon primes with the great big apertures as they are released. Light always seems to be a problem without artificial light, even at f 2.8, unless it is a bright and sunny day outside. So the f4 serves me well enough at this time. Wonderful lens. I am glad I have it. Thank you for your time.
Great explanation and training. I have the 24-105 and I’m looking to add the 24-70 for better low light performance for wedding videography, but you make a great point about using the 24-105 at longer focal lengths and distance to get more separation.
So you wouldn’t recommend the 24-105 for videography? I mean sure it does look better with the background blown out nicely, but shouldn’t f4 still provide a nice bokeh?
@@Nick-nz4qy I really like the RF 24-105. I rented the 24-70, but I have gotten great results with the 24-105 and I’m good with that lens. It’s sharp and I can crank the ISO if I need more light. At this time if recommend the 24-105. A very versatile lens, especially for the price.
I have an EOS R 50 mm 1.8 and I'm debating whether to get a 24-240 f4-6.3 or the 24-105 f4L or to not get any at all. Leaving on a trip to Norway and am quite stuck whether I want to drop the $ or not.
Hi, thanks for this educational video. I am just getting my toes wet and I made my decision to get 24-105mm F4 and invest money into a better focal lense. Thanks for the advice, I just needed the extra push to pull the plug on that lense.
I think both lenses are great. Glad you mentioned the 24-105 is not skimping in any way. It's a very versatile, full-on pro lens. One thing I experienced was the 24-105 struggled locking focus a bit in darker lighting situations vs. the 24-70. So, the 24-70 is definitely as you said the better lens for weddings/events. And despite cameras being able to shoot at higher ISOs these days, an f/2.8 aperture will still give you faster shutter speeds or cleaner images vs. an f/4.
I’d take the 24-105mm f/4 from those two. Especially in national parks where you’ll be outside with a lot of light (less concern for aperture) and constrained to trails with subjects and scenes at greater distances (more concerned for the longer focal range)
I’m looking at switching from a crop sensor Fuji to the Canon. I have the equivalent “24-70” but I find I almost always shoot at 70mm and my other favorite lens is my 50-140 (70-200 equivalent). I’m leaning towards the 24-105 I don’t think at f4 on full frame will be much different than a crop at f2.8. I do photography as a hobby but do some hired work.
i use Fujifilm, but i'm actually here because i'm looking for validation in my plan to sell my f2.8 zoom for an f4 zoom. the lack of OIS on my f2.8 zoom is pretty big to me since neither of my bodies have IBIS
OIS was a big factor in me choosing the 24-70mm f/2.8 over the 28-70mm f/2. If you’re in doubt rent that lens first before you commit to selling your f/2.8.
I'm having some trouble deciding whether it's worth upgrading to the 24-70mm f2.8 from my 24-105mm. For context, I shoot photography and video and have a pretty large collection of primes along with the RF 70-200mm 2.8 and the RF 14-35mm (which I mostly use for real estate work). Mainly I'm needing a lens for those occasions where I'm shooting video on my RS3. I have used the 24-105mm f4 a lot in the past and I have also used the RF 16mm f2.8 + RF 50mm 1.8 as a gimbal lens combo as they are the exact same size and weight, but I'm not sure the quality is quite there and switching between the lenses can be an issue, especially if you're trying to do things quickly.
Dude!!! What a great video, so much info packed into this video, ESPECIALLY when you mention focal length is only 1/3 of the equation! No one ever mentions that! Just found your channel but subscribed and will check out more of your videos!!!
Subscribed! Very informative thank you. I got the 24-105l, and an adapted ef 70-300l for my R6. Just upgraded to that from an oly EM-5. What a difference!
Perfect recent video I'm looking for. Recently switched to R6 from Olympus E-M1 II and while I do have the STM 24-105 (as a kit) I am considering these two lenses and based on your good points per use cases, the f4/L is definitely the best bang for the buck. I'll just use the ~$1K price difference for building a cine set/rig instead. Subscribed!
Bought the 24-105mm and 100-500mm and 50mm 1.8 a month ago, but still awaiting delivery of my R5 II looks like they fibbed a bit and it’s going to be another month or two before it’s here. Might change my mind and get an R6 mark II instead.
It’s awesome that we talked about this on the discord and then you made a video about it! I’ve been researching this a lot obviously and I’m even thinking about going for Sigma’s line of lenses because I’ve heard good things and they’re half the price of native Canon glass! I’ll test some of them out and see if I can tell a difference in quality! However, your thoughts are extremely helpful in making my decision!
I think it is all about who you are as a photographer..what do you value the most and what you looking for in your pics,for me i believe is bigger aperture,separation,more light in,better quality in the hardware and more clarity in the photos and all that is in the RF 24-70 mm f 2.8,the price? Yes is way more 💵 but if you have that kind of money to buy a Roll Royce then your money is save for sure because one is going to last you longer and two it would keep the value.
Great video, man. I have the RF24-105 but find that I don’t use it much. I naturally gravitate towards using a prime anytime I go out to shoot, but you’ve made me want to pick up the 24-105 again, so thank you. Keep up the good content!
@@Dom_2444 I’ve always liked shooting 50mm, so that’s my go to, but I also shoot 35mm. Waiting on a Canon to release a worthy 24mm or 28mm to cover the wide end.
R8 with 24-105/4, I´m really happy with the hybrid results. (its my first camera and my first lens), and I think it couldn´t be a better combo to start. Now I´m missing more apperture like, 1.8, 1.4, and I dont wanna leave L series.
Hey Steven, I got the R6 ii 1-2 months ago and got the 24-70 RF. I'm a hybrid shooter. I am trying to get back into photography shooting mostly city/landscape, but some personal family photos/portraits mostly for fun. But I have 2 TH-cam channels. I am sort of regretting this setup's size. It's huge for hikes, and it's too large to vlog with. Not just heavy, but it draws a lot of attention. Do you think getting a 24-105 instead would help me here? I've been having some buyer's remorse and thinking I should have gone with Sony due to the smaller bodies and large selection of smaller lenses, including the 24-70 ii being smaller. I came from a a T7i with a 10-18 and 50 1.8 and that's all I carried and it was easy, light, and I looked more like a traditional vacationer than some dude with a huge lens pointing everywhere. I don't regret going full frame due to light and focal range, but I feel it hinders me some...
I have been working with the 18-150 kit lens 3.5-6.3 for church and some events. I am fairly new and could tell I need something for low light. I use the longer focal length for quite a bit of shots so I am not in the front of the church. With that being said, if I went with the 20-70 I feel I’ll miss the focal length, but not sure if the 35-105 f4 will give me much of a difference for the cost? Would it be fair to sell my 18-150 for the 35-105 or keep it? I have a 55mm too and 70-200 2.8 EF, but heavy! I have a 100-400 as I do a lot of youth sports ….Decisions.
First off.... Thanks sooooo much for taking the time to do this video. I just got an R10 from an SL2. I also got the RF 100-400. One of my favorites is wildlife, but.... I'm now saving up for some nice glass in that 20-150 shorter range. It all started with not being able to get good shots of my kids in dimly lit gyms with their sports (volleyball,basketball etc.). Also, doing indoor events in general, concerts weddings etc. That's where I have been leaning really hard on the F2.8 aspect. With the R10, do you have thoughts about going with this 24-105 F4 being fast enough? I LOVE the little bit longer range with this lens. I am thinking about saving for the RF version, but holy cow... Anyway, I'd love to hear your followers thoughts as well! Peace to all and God bless.
keep in mind when shooting people in action in dimly lit environments, your aperture will let in more light at f/2.8 at the expense of what will be in focus. The Canon R series cameras have the best auto focus I have seen but it’s still not perfect. I’d stick with the f/4 and push the iso on whatever camera body I was using while keeping the shutter speed fast. Shooting action in low light is a challenge! I know though you’ll get it dialed in. Thank you for you note here. Be Blessed.
It's been a while since I tuned in and happy to see you grow. But very sorry about your leg - hope you'll get better very soon! I started with the RF 24-105 F4 on my R6 and over time added the 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8 and the 15-35 2.8 (only bought the 15-35 F4 because it was the same price like the 14-35 F4 and it was a great deal :D) Over the years I realized I really like the 35mm and 50mm focal length, but the RF 24-105 is such a great versatile lens, I keep coming back to this one again and again. I shoot mainly family stuff, both photo and video. Lately I want to jump back on to YT and practise more video after 1,5 year parenting, but still struggle with time management ^^'' Last video I created I realized the RF 35 1.8 is not good for teleprompter work, since the lens extends while focusing and the motor is to weak to hold a small teleprompter. Because of that I use the RF 24-105 or RF 15-35 with the teleprompter, since I still can't get any words out in English in front of the camera without teleprompter. Keep up your great work on this channel! I really enjoy your videos when I have time to click and watch them :)
I have a canon 90d camera .I am on the middle of deciding which lens to buy I'm NOT a professional photographer and don't do portraits I travel a lot and do a lot of landscapes and night stuff I was going to purchase the 24-70 mm f2.8 but my friend who does professional photography yes she does concerts for celebrities just got a 28-105mm F4 and told me to do get that. I'm so confused. I cant afford to get both and need to know which to buy for a trip in few weeks pls help
Newbie and I think I get what you're saying with subject isolation but not sure. Any comparisons available? I only have a rf 50mm &r5. Im trying to picture how you can get isolation at f4 that would be similar to f1.8 or 2.8. Even with a change in distance. Thank you. Hope you're enjoying your baby boy!
So I'm new-ish here to Canon. I owned an R6 in 2021, and a R8 last year, but I'm a Sony shooter switching because i discovered Sony sabotages TTL flash on anything hut their own flash units (long story) but i really want TTL so im switching. Im looking at getting an R5 and i can afford either the 24-70 or 24-105 f4. Im mostly concerned about the image quality difference. I dont care so much about low apeerture bokeh, im stopped down to f4 and 5.6 most times for video, but if the image quality is noticabley better on the 2.8 then ill go for that. I plan on actually filming in 8k for landscapes and cityscapes on NYC nyc where I live. I do events also snd the 2.8 might come in handy on the R5, ( i have an A7siii and shoot f5.6 in low light at 12800 iso normally, i dint exoect the R5 sensor to be as good). If anyone can tell me if theres any image quality difference between the two, then that would be super helpful.
Having both lens I have not seen an image quality difference between these two lens. Canon is committed to quality with their L-series line and the 24-105 f/4 L lives up to it at least for me.
I'm looking to upgrade my camera from a 90d to an R series camera body, leaning towards the R6. My plan is to get the 24 to 105 f4 and 70 to 200 f4. I mostly shoot woodland, and i make short "cinematic" hiking videos for TH-cam. My 90d is a great camera but I'm looking to get into full frame and use the 90d as a second camera. Maybe throw a prime or a longer zoom on the 90d, maybe and ef mount 100 to 500 or 600. Sigma makes a 150 to 600 that's caught my eye.
@@bmcla34 crazy good in low light, you can't crop as much as with the 90d but the images are still amazing. I can get long exposure astro photos hand held with the ibis and a stabilized lens. Definitely want that 70-200
@@Gdphoto.info_ yeah with the 20 mega pixel sensor cropping in is difficult. I try not to crop in too much, so hopefully that won't affect me too much. The low light performance really checks a box for me. I go out into the woods really early in the morning so that will come in handy. My 90d does pretty well at 3,500 iso, but i don't like going above that.
great different approach to deciding which lens to pick. Especially the insight on the f/4 for video. had all of the information i wanted without any gimmicky stuff. keep making these videos. They're really helpful. I'm surprised your channel doesn't get more traffic
These were some key thoughts! I had the opportunity to swap lenses with a buddy and get off a couple shots with the 24-105. I'm just dipping my toes into RF glass, and I think that lens will replace my 24-70 Tamron AND my starter 15-85. Thanks, mate!
Thank you for expressing your opinion and expertise on the 24-105 F4. I’d added it to my list as I embark into “real photography” 🤣 after starting my channel using only GoPro and my smartphone’s camera upon buying an R8 but wasn’t sure if I was understanding the F4 is throughout the lens focal range or if it was a misprint 😜!
I shoot a lot of corporate, school and general business events and the 24 to 105 is an absolute beast workhorse lens. So if you’re really talking for a beginner, May be smarter to start with the 24 to 105 f/4 and then use the money you save to buy the canon EL1 flash (this is a game changer). The extra range is so much more useful. And frankly they R6 and the R5 do pretty well in low light and I get decent photos close to 10,000 ISO, and grain looks more filmic at that point and it’s still usable in my book. I do generally try not to go much above’s ISO 6400 just as a general rule but have with excellent results and happy clients.
Bought the F4 24 - 105 much lighter and shot a few weddings in churches no problem . Had the 24 to 70 tamron it is lighter than the canon rf 24-70 way to heavy . Also picked up a rf 70-210 f4 and than I bought this lens the size and weight so light and compact don't need the f 2.8 weight
2.8 is pretty overrated unless you literally have a wad of cash at your disposal. These days with F/4 on cameras like the R6, low light is freakin’ superb already. Most people won’t know the difference in quality.
@@indyjones720 All true unless you’re on Safari in fading light with a bunch of restless Lions. Otherwise the F4 which I have is spectacular So to overcome the issue I switch to Video mode!
I have the EF version of the F4..0 - 24-70 .. I decided to pay under £400.00 and save money instead of buying the RF version. I never use anything below F4.0 because Bokeh is not part of my style. I like the photos sharp, crisp , detailed with a bit of haze in post production. I hate losing information .. at sunny weather I’m in around F16, during day I’m around F5.6 to F8.0. I didn’t need anything faster than F4.0. Plus the RF version lens feel like a toy. Build quality is rubbish. They break it easily whereas EF have always been heavy duty and proven performers. RF has a lot to prove yet at least before I can feel comfortable of spending four figures just for a lens. But I do have the RF 1.8 35 mm for low light conditions, It is cheaper but high quality faster aperture than the 2.8.
I've had a RF 35 and 85 1.4 L for years. Thinking of trading it for one of these for a more all purpose. Just fun / family shooting. Nothing crazy. Worried I'll really miss the extra light coming from those to the 24-105. Would really appreciate that versatility/focal length though. Thoughts?
If you have to freeze motion in difficult lighting, F2.8 can do it, F4 really can't without noisy iso levels, that's the main thing to consider in my opinion.
When I bought the 24-105 I was surprised at how little difference there was between 70mm and 105mm. Then I opened the aperture to f4 and it was a very bad feeling that it couldn't be opened more ;). I realised that I couldn't live with it. The next day I replaced the lens with a 24-70.
I have got RF 24-105mm variable aperture and RF35 F1.8. I like travel and I will shoot yoga and workout video and picture. I want to buy more lense and have no idea. 24, 50, 80, 70-200, 24-70, 24-240 all are good. I am still hesitate about prime or zoom
Good video, so pretty much what you are saying " IF " I understood right... If you are doing weddings and have money, we want to go with tha RF 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, is that correct ? Any chance you have a picture using tha RF 24-70mm f/2.8 and another picture using RF 24-105mm
If you’re shooting weddings and are already looking at the 24-70 2.8 consider the 28-70 2.0. Seriously the F2 throughout makes this lens look like prime lenses.
Great video. I am considering the R3 with the 24 - 70 2.8, and the 70 - 200 2.8, for shooting indoor sports like volleyball and outdoor sports like cross-country. Plus, I expect to use it on the water so weatherproofing is important as well. I like the 28 - 70 2.0 but weight and no stabilization are factors.
The EF24-70mm f/2.8L first series was a massive beast and I wasn’t using it all that much. I considered the later EF24-70 f/4L. When I got the R5, I realized there is no RF24-70mm f/4, so I got the RF24-105mm f/4 which is the closest thing. I was worried the RF24-70mm f/2.8 might weigh the same as the massive beast. BTW the EF24-70mm f/2.8 was an excellent quality lens but I realized I wasn’t using it as much because it was so bulky. Canon must have had this in mind when they released the mk Ii of this lens and the EF24-70mm f/4L
If you can afford the 2.8 you should absolutely have f2.8 at your disposal, it makes the lens usable most anywhere, whereas the f4 needs decent light to avoid excessive noise, it's a budget compromise, awesome in decent light, but still a economic compromise.
@@indyjones720 the marginal improvement in high ISO performance is nothing compared to what F2.8 gets you over F4. If you need to freeze action in low light, f2.8 will allow for clean shots that f4 just can't come close to. For the most part, f4 is good for at least mediocre light levels, or slower subjects, if you need to shoot with a faster shutter, in low light, no sensor is going to give you super clean results at f4
@@indyjones720 if that makes you feel better about going cheap on your glass, because you spent your money on a new body, you keep telling yourself that. F2.8 glass is night and day more capable in difficult lighting, than F4 glass, regardless of the sensor you're using, it offers the same exact benefit of double the light gathering to an r6ii sensor, as it does to a 5D sensor. This isn't even factoring in other IQ upgrades that typically come with the jump up to f2.8 glass, or bokeh renderings that f2.8 offers over f4. The only reason to choose an f4 lens over an f2.8 lens is budget, and sensitivity to weight, optically they are in another league.
@@G95G95 that’s pretty rude to say I went cheap on glass for buying an RF 24-105 F4. You sound like a spoiled rich brat who was given everything. This convo is done.
Best of both worlds setup in my opinion is the RF 24-70 paired with the EF 24-105 adapted to RF. The EF lens has been nothing short of fantastic paired to my RF bodies
I think the RF 14-35mm f/4 lens doesn't need a lock for the same reason I like it, it has a very short throw and the barrel of the lens is hardly exposed when fully extended. It makes me believe that it's the safest zoom lens I own in terms of risk of things getting dragged inside of the lens body when extending and retracting the lens.
Been tempted to sell my 24-105 for the 24-70. Haven't since I do a lot of hybrid and it being lighter is great for video. If I need something fast and for events then I feel I can get it done with the 15-35 & 70-200 2.8s. For my overland trips the 24-105 & 100-500 has me covered. Throw in the 15-35 for astro and I'm completely covered. Anyways great vids my man and congrats on the new kiddo! Kids are the best and enjoy the ride!
Looking very much forward to trying the 24-70 and 28-70 for fun, but still very happy with the 24-105 after a few years. Despite missing RF f1.4s and some other notable RF holes, the good news is that with the 16mm, Canon now has a bunch of the affordable, fast prime options to pair with the 24-105. The one downside for me - I would like the 24-70 for that f2.8 at 24mm for the occasional astro. I've sat on the decision for a long time as I learn about what shooting I like best, but will likely consolidate my wider primes with the 15-35. Just wish it had the lock!!
The price for both lenses are not cheap, the RF 24-105 mm 4.0 starting at around $1,300, then add the camera, and this will stop, perhaps 99.5% of all people to buy and use this system for TikTok or other social medias, when the cell phone will do just fine. These are professional lenses, despite that the EF/RF 24-105 mm 4.0 carries the "kit" label. Now, the RF 28-70 mm 2.0 carries a stout $3,099 price tag, and is a specialized lens for top level professionals. The alternative, with great results, would be the EF 24-70 mm 2.8 for much less, but still not a recommended lens for the general hobbyist.
Thank you all for your support. Couldn't get some good side by side examples with my leg being wrecked and my son finally arrived but I still wanted to get this out to you all. Hoping all is well with you and sending you all my best! See you all in a couple of weeks!
Congrats for being a dad! Enjoy your time with your family and getting to know your son :)
I went with the 24-105/4 because I figured with the high iso ability of the R6 I could afford to lose that stop of light. I've been REALLY happy with it. It's funny, because when I'm around home(local parks, on walks, etc.) I almost never use it. When I'm on vacation, it's practically glued to the camera. For capturing a place I've never been before, it's an amazing lens.
can you tell me how it is working in doors with a window as the natural light source? I will soon be picking up the r6 mark ii
How is it on low light? Im thinking of getting it
I found that, with DXO Photolab noise reduction, I could shoot up to iso 25600 and still get good images, so low light indoors wasn't a problem for me.
I’m definitely thinking of getting the 24-105mm just because it covers all the focal lengths I need. 35mm 50mm 85mm 100mm
Plus I mostly do events. Only worried about its low light performance.
I've found that the extra 35mm of reach is more useful for me than the extra light-gathering and shallow depth of field provided by apertures wider than f/4. (I've got primes for when I need more of those things.)
This was a problem for me when I was using the 5D4 because the EF 24-105 was not a sharp lens, but the RF model solved that when I switched to the EOS R and R6. The lighter weight and smaller size are also welcome.
Hi. I hade the same experience with the EF24-105mkII , I did not find it sharp enough so I sold it. Maybe I had a bad copy. Now with the R5 im debating with myself if to get the RF24-70 or the RF24-105. its for Landscape so I dont need the 2,8 (and I have 1,4 primes for low light situations) My concern is if the 24-105 may suffer for diffraction more than the 24-70 at f11-f16.? Anything you notice ? Cheers from Sweden //Mikael
@@mikaelhylander6321 I have used both extensively, and the RF is much sharper than the EF. To me, it seems that the RF 24-105 is on par with the EF 24-70 f/2.8. I admit that I have not compared diffraction at those apertures between those two lenses.
@@DaneRThomas OK, thanks for take the time to answer. I will try find the 24-105 used to try it out, then it pretty much money back if I sell it again. But I think I would keep it. As well as for you I rather have + 35mm, than 2,8. I have already RF15-35 2,8. Superb lens.
I dont know if you will read this but I have a canon 90d right now and am looking to upgrade in the future so im doing research oh what I need to prioritize, so I do portraits, nature and wildlife with a little bit of product photography, I'm thinking of getting the r5 for the ability to crop in if I need for wildlife and im thinking my first rf lens is going to be the 24-105 I already have a tameron 24-70 2.8 and a 16-35 f4 and I see on my crop censor that I seem to stick to 35mm or 50mm full frame equivalent, so with nature I don't need to have the low aperture but after I get the 24-105 I'm looking at the 100-500 L lens that looks good and if I want/need to put a 1.4 teleconverter on I can and not loose sharpness. But I'm still trying to convince my self to not spend to much money since I don't make alot from photography on the side right now but I'm marketing my self and trying to get known. Thanks for the video
Hi Steven, at retirement I’m definitely not “starting out” but what I can add is that I’ve had the two 24-105 4 L’s initially in the EF mount and now the RF version and found it, as you mentioned, incredibly versatile. Something I’d add is that for travel if you want to take one decent body and one lens this is it. Having said that if I was starting out doing events especially weddings (as I was “back in the day”) the 24-70 2.8 L would be top of my list, bodies change but good glass lasts a long time 😀 In NZ the price difference is about NZ$2000 ! Really fair review and comments I thought 😀 Cheers Chris
RF 24-105 F4 is one of the best RF lenses out there. I pair it with my R5 and love it! Although id say to pair it with a 50mm Prime for lowlight
If you took the same picture at F4 using the 24-70 2.8 lens and the 24-105 would the quality/sharpness be better on the 2.8 lens because of the larger/better glass?
Was there an answer to this question I have the same question
I am doing sports videography, trying to figure out which lens will be better for shooting basketball
Hello Steven. So Im an old man just taking the plunge to learn how to create greta images using still photographs. I will be shooting wildlife and landscapes. Just ordered a Canon R6 MK II body. I m going to go with the 24-105 f.4... A prime 35mm 1.8 and a prime 400mm. Your comments helped me greatly. Hey be patient with the leg. I ve had 3 knee ops and it does heel up..
Thank you for the great information and insight. I am a hobbyist photographer where my main subjects are birds and wild animals. If money was not an concern, I would purchase the fastest lens available. Never the less, I have the RF 24-105 f/4 L and the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 L. These lens are great for travel as will, where I generally just use the RF 24-105.
Just ordered the 24-105 F/4 for my small TH-cam because of your positive remarks. 🎉
This review is exactly what i was looking for! I think you're the only person on the internet who actually has experience with both lenses and can articulate the advantages/disadvantages of both. Thank you
I have compared both of these two lens, 2.8 and 4 difference is not too much under the dark environment when I take video.
what about taking photos with window light ?
I'm just getting back into photography. When I was in it last I had a really nice film camera, a Minolta 7xi. It was a huge upgrade at the time from the old cheap cameras I learned on, although I've won a photo contest on both. From there, the digital world took over and I just had point and shoots and I've been dying to get back in and I'm facing the decision we all must make...2.8 or 4? I lean towards the f4's because the others are so damn heavy! Plan on getting a Canon R6 mark2 body. I've always shot a lot of reptiles, being a keeper/breeder all my life, and a lot of back rooms of zoos and inside reptile keepers facilities, and animals in general so I'm getting the 100mm Macro 2.8 for sure for close ups and a 70-200 for telephoto - I'm in pest control in Charleston, SC and I'm all over this place and it is beautiful and see things all the time that would be great to photograph. So I want a good outdoors/landscapes and 'places' lens for everyday. Thinking a 15-35 f2.8 for that end of things, indoors and outdoors, the 24-105 f4 for a 'stay on the camera mostly' lens, also indoors outdoors, and a 70-200 f4, along with the macro would be a great group for me. I've got a friend in Costa Rica I like to go see. Awesome opportunities there. I'm thinking if there is one place to splurge on the 2.8, it should be the wide angle lens...agree? Would love to hear back. Thanks and Love the channel!
I have a lens assemblage very similar to what you outline in your post.
Although the RF 15-35 2.8 lens is a fantastic lens to bring to Costa Rica based solely on the results it gives, it is quite heavy. There may be a better option for travel, like this RF 24-105 f4.
The RF 15-35 2.8 has given me stunning photos and would likely give you dream shots of sunsets down there. Though your post is a year old and you have likely been and gone on your trip, I’d love to hear what you brought.
I Started out with a EF 70-200mm f2.8 with the adapter on a canon R10. Im currently shooting High school basketball. Im just starting this journey and Ive been trying to figure out which lens to go to next. As im starting to get more people intereseted in doing senior pictures and different types of photo shoot.
I got back into photography intending to focus on actor headshots and studio shoots but I found myself fascinated with street and street portraiture photography. I had a 24-240mm f4-6.3 that I bought used along with my used EOS RP. I snatched up the 50mm 1.8 as my first prime and as a way to taste that sweet fast lens boca goodness on the cheap. Loved it, so was all set to grab the 35mm 1.8 STM, the 35 being the bread and butter for many established street photographers. But the camera shop had a used 24-105mm f4 L-series and I realized I had a chance to own an L for the first time and set myself up to take real quality headshots and have a fitting lens ready for when I upgrade to an R5. I also wanted my street portraits to sing. The result of all this was that I am happy I went with the 24 to 105 L over a 35mm. I can emulate the classic 35mm style of my idols while also tasting some of the 85mm eye auto focus style that's popular on IG. When I get somebody willing to pose for a portrait session, I can get wide and long shots for a nice variety. I'm still going to be getting the 35mm in the future as a street enthusiast, but I am very happy I went with the 24-105 L when I could. The f2.8 is attractive but this all leads to my main point: I never shoot street below f5.6. I always want the context. Blurs are useless to me. I'm always at f11 or 16 or maybe 8 if I'm hurting for light, but I have no need for 2.8 and definitely no need to pay for it. The 85mm street guys shoot wide open for snappy stollen portraits but that's not me right now.
Just out of curiosity, has your setup or opinion changed now that a couple of years have passed?
Would love to hear more about the focal length + aperture separation subject.
Yes! Been working on some animations and assets to show this off. Hopefully soon. Hope all is well with you man!
@@_stevenfoster is the 24-70 sharper than the 25-105?
I agree! A 35-85mm lens would be amazing! I’ve also always said 50-105mm, or even a 50-135mm. Sigma did the 50-100mm f1.8 already 10 years ago but that was for aps-c sensor I thought for sure canon would make a lens similar. Portraits photographers love to travel light and compact too!
Im a hybrid shooter. I prefer video but I also do a lot of portrait photography and now more event photography. Feel like I’ll be leaning to the f/2.8
With modern iso values and denoise software f4 is probably the best option.
Nice video! I got my R with the 24-105 f4. I was considering getting the 24-70 f2.8, but I think I will keep the f4 and get those beautiful Canon primes with the great big apertures as they are released. Light always seems to be a problem without artificial light, even at f 2.8, unless it is a bright and sunny day outside. So the f4 serves me well enough at this time. Wonderful lens. I am glad I have it. Thank you for your time.
Jumped into an eos r6 m ii with both 15-35mm 2.8f & 28-70mm 2.8f. Will post update in a month
Any updates ?
Great explanation and training. I have the 24-105 and I’m looking to add the 24-70 for better low light performance for wedding videography, but you make a great point about using the 24-105 at longer focal lengths and distance to get more separation.
if youre still looking for something for wedding videography you could get a 50mm prime 1.8 or even 1.4
So you wouldn’t recommend the 24-105 for videography? I mean sure it does look better with the background blown out nicely, but shouldn’t f4 still provide a nice bokeh?
@@Nick-nz4qy I really like the RF 24-105. I rented the 24-70, but I have gotten great results with the 24-105 and I’m good with that lens. It’s sharp and I can crank the ISO if I need more light. At this time if recommend the 24-105. A very versatile lens, especially for the price.
@@justesmond oh awesome! Thank you!
@3:55 I’ve shot a wedding with a 1DXmkII and mkI with a 17-40f4 and a 200f2.8 prime. I’m not a wedding shooter, but it worked.
I have an EOS R 50 mm 1.8 and I'm debating whether to get a 24-240 f4-6.3 or the 24-105 f4L or to not get any at all. Leaving on a trip to Norway and am quite stuck whether I want to drop the $ or not.
what do you think of Tamron's 35-150 f2-2.8? seems like your dream lens recommendation to me?
I’ve heard so many people talk about this lens but haven’t got my hands on it yet. Focal length and aperture alone are an incredible combo.
Hi, thanks for this educational video. I am just getting my toes wet and I made my decision to get 24-105mm F4 and invest money into a better focal lense. Thanks for the advice, I just needed the extra push to pull the plug on that lense.
28-70f2 FTW! Honesly, they are all good, but I'm really loving the 28-70 despite its massive weight and cost.
how does the f4 do with natural window light as the source light? I have an r6 mark ii? I really need to know this
I think both lenses are great. Glad you mentioned the 24-105 is not skimping in any way. It's a very versatile, full-on pro lens. One thing I experienced was the 24-105 struggled locking focus a bit in darker lighting situations vs. the 24-70. So, the 24-70 is definitely as you said the better lens for weddings/events. And despite cameras being able to shoot at higher ISOs these days, an f/2.8 aperture will still give you faster shutter speeds or cleaner images vs. an f/4.
Which recommendation for shooting in Teton and Yellowstone parks, using Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4 on Canon R6 mark 2 camera?
I’d take the 24-105mm f/4 from those two. Especially in national parks where you’ll be outside with a lot of light (less concern for aperture) and constrained to trails with subjects and scenes at greater distances (more concerned for the longer focal range)
I have never heard a photographer says the fastest aperture isn't the end all thanks for that
Thanks for the information. Prefers 24-104mm f/4 IS USM. Reasons focul lenght and steady f/4.
I’m looking at switching from a crop sensor Fuji to the Canon. I have the equivalent “24-70” but I find I almost always shoot at 70mm and my other favorite lens is my 50-140 (70-200 equivalent). I’m leaning towards the 24-105 I don’t think at f4 on full frame will be much different than a crop at f2.8. I do photography as a hobby but do some hired work.
i use Fujifilm, but i'm actually here because i'm looking for validation in my plan to sell my f2.8 zoom for an f4 zoom. the lack of OIS on my f2.8 zoom is pretty big to me since neither of my bodies have IBIS
OIS was a big factor in me choosing the 24-70mm f/2.8 over the 28-70mm f/2. If you’re in doubt rent that lens first before you commit to selling your f/2.8.
I'm having some trouble deciding whether it's worth upgrading to the 24-70mm f2.8 from my 24-105mm. For context, I shoot photography and video and have a pretty large collection of primes along with the RF 70-200mm 2.8 and the RF 14-35mm (which I mostly use for real estate work).
Mainly I'm needing a lens for those occasions where I'm shooting video on my RS3. I have used the 24-105mm f4 a lot in the past and I have also used the RF 16mm f2.8 + RF 50mm 1.8 as a gimbal lens combo as they are the exact same size and weight, but I'm not sure the quality is quite there and switching between the lenses can be an issue, especially if you're trying to do things quickly.
Dude!!! What a great video, so much info packed into this video, ESPECIALLY when you mention focal length is only 1/3 of the equation! No one ever mentions that! Just found your channel but subscribed and will check out more of your videos!!!
What's the watch you're wearing in this video?
Subscribed! Very informative thank you. I got the 24-105l, and an adapted ef 70-300l for my R6. Just upgraded to that from an oly EM-5. What a difference!
Perfect recent video I'm looking for. Recently switched to R6 from Olympus E-M1 II and while I do have the STM 24-105 (as a kit) I am considering these two lenses and based on your good points per use cases, the f4/L is definitely the best bang for the buck. I'll just use the ~$1K price difference for building a cine set/rig instead. Subscribed!
Bought the 24-105mm and 100-500mm and 50mm 1.8 a month ago, but still awaiting delivery of my R5 II looks like they fibbed a bit and it’s going to be another month or two before it’s here. Might change my mind and get an R6 mark II instead.
It’s awesome that we talked about this on the discord and then you made a video about it! I’ve been researching this a lot obviously and I’m even thinking about going for Sigma’s line of lenses because I’ve heard good things and they’re half the price of native Canon glass! I’ll test some of them out and see if I can tell a difference in quality! However, your thoughts are extremely helpful in making my decision!
Should I upgrade my R10 body? It’s been pretty good so far lol
I think it is all about who you are as a photographer..what do you value the most and what you looking for in your pics,for me i believe is bigger aperture,separation,more light in,better quality in the hardware and more clarity in the photos and all that is in the RF 24-70 mm f 2.8,the price? Yes is way more 💵 but if you have that kind of money to buy a Roll Royce then your money is save for sure because one is going to last you longer and two it would keep the value.
Great video, man. I have the RF24-105 but find that I don’t use it much. I naturally gravitate towards using a prime anytime I go out to shoot, but you’ve made me want to pick up the 24-105 again, so thank you. Keep up the good content!
Which prime lenses do you normally go to?
@@Dom_2444 I’ve always liked shooting 50mm, so that’s my go to, but I also shoot 35mm. Waiting on a Canon to release a worthy 24mm or 28mm to cover the wide end.
R8 with 24-105/4, I´m really happy with the hybrid results. (its my first camera and my first lens), and I think it couldn´t be a better combo to start. Now I´m missing more apperture like, 1.8, 1.4, and I dont wanna leave L series.
Hey Steven, I got the R6 ii 1-2 months ago and got the 24-70 RF. I'm a hybrid shooter. I am trying to get back into photography shooting mostly city/landscape, but some personal family photos/portraits mostly for fun. But I have 2 TH-cam channels. I am sort of regretting this setup's size. It's huge for hikes, and it's too large to vlog with. Not just heavy, but it draws a lot of attention. Do you think getting a 24-105 instead would help me here? I've been having some buyer's remorse and thinking I should have gone with Sony due to the smaller bodies and large selection of smaller lenses, including the 24-70 ii being smaller. I came from a a T7i with a 10-18 and 50 1.8 and that's all I carried and it was easy, light, and I looked more like a traditional vacationer than some dude with a huge lens pointing everywhere. I don't regret going full frame due to light and focal range, but I feel it hinders me some...
I have been working with the 18-150 kit lens 3.5-6.3 for church and some events. I am fairly new and could tell I need something for low light. I use the longer focal length for quite a bit of shots so I am not in the front of the church. With that being said, if I went with the 20-70 I feel I’ll miss the focal length, but not sure if the 35-105 f4 will give me much of a difference for the cost? Would it be fair to sell my 18-150 for the 35-105 or keep it? I have a 55mm too and 70-200 2.8 EF, but heavy! I have a 100-400 as I do a lot of youth sports ….Decisions.
Hi Steven thanks for the great content. Was wondering what do think of the Tamron 35mm-150mm f2/f2.8 as beginner wedding photography lens
I haven’t had the opportunity to try that Tamron lens. But definitely a great combo of focal range and aperture.
First off.... Thanks sooooo much for taking the time to do this video. I just got an R10 from an SL2. I also got the RF 100-400. One of my favorites is wildlife, but.... I'm now saving up for some nice glass in that 20-150 shorter range. It all started with not being able to get good shots of my kids in dimly lit gyms with their sports (volleyball,basketball etc.). Also, doing indoor events in general, concerts weddings etc. That's where I have been leaning really hard on the F2.8 aspect. With the R10, do you have thoughts about going with this 24-105 F4 being fast enough? I LOVE the little bit longer range with this lens. I am thinking about saving for the RF version, but holy cow... Anyway, I'd love to hear your followers thoughts as well! Peace to all and God bless.
keep in mind when shooting people in action in dimly lit environments, your aperture will let in more light at f/2.8 at the expense of what will be in focus. The Canon R series cameras have the best auto focus I have seen but it’s still not perfect. I’d stick with the f/4 and push the iso on whatever camera body I was using while keeping the shutter speed fast. Shooting action in low light is a challenge! I know though you’ll get it dialed in. Thank you for you note here. Be Blessed.
It's been a while since I tuned in and happy to see you grow. But very sorry about your leg - hope you'll get better very soon!
I started with the RF 24-105 F4 on my R6 and over time added the 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8 and the 15-35 2.8 (only bought the 15-35 F4 because it was the same price like the 14-35 F4 and it was a great deal :D)
Over the years I realized I really like the 35mm and 50mm focal length, but the RF 24-105 is such a great versatile lens, I keep coming back to this one again and again.
I shoot mainly family stuff, both photo and video.
Lately I want to jump back on to YT and practise more video after 1,5 year parenting, but still struggle with time management ^^''
Last video I created I realized the RF 35 1.8 is not good for teleprompter work, since the lens extends while focusing and the motor is to weak to hold a small teleprompter.
Because of that I use the RF 24-105 or RF 15-35 with the teleprompter, since I still can't get any words out in English in front of the camera without teleprompter.
Keep up your great work on this channel! I really enjoy your videos when I have time to click and watch them :)
I have a canon 90d camera .I am on the middle of deciding which lens to buy I'm NOT a professional photographer and don't do portraits I travel a lot and do a lot of landscapes and night stuff I was going to purchase the 24-70 mm f2.8 but my friend who does professional photography yes she does concerts for celebrities just got a 28-105mm F4 and told me to do get that. I'm so confused. I cant afford to get both and need to know which to buy for a trip in few weeks pls help
Going with the 24-105
Newbie and I think I get what you're saying with subject isolation but not sure. Any comparisons available?
I only have a rf 50mm &r5. Im trying to picture how you can get isolation at f4 that would be similar to f1.8 or 2.8. Even with a change in distance. Thank you.
Hope you're enjoying your baby boy!
Thank you for this video. I think I’ll go for the 24-105 f4
Final thoughts: write down in the comments which lense do you prefer…😫🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻
So I'm new-ish here to Canon. I owned an R6 in 2021, and a R8 last year, but I'm a Sony shooter switching because i discovered Sony sabotages TTL flash on anything hut their own flash units (long story) but i really want TTL so im switching. Im looking at getting an R5 and i can afford either the 24-70 or 24-105 f4. Im mostly concerned about the image quality difference. I dont care so much about low apeerture bokeh, im stopped down to f4 and 5.6 most times for video, but if the image quality is noticabley better on the 2.8 then ill go for that. I plan on actually filming in 8k for landscapes and cityscapes on NYC nyc where I live. I do events also snd the 2.8 might come in handy on the R5, ( i have an A7siii and shoot f5.6 in low light at 12800 iso normally, i dint exoect the R5 sensor to be as good).
If anyone can tell me if theres any image quality difference between the two, then that would be super helpful.
Having both lens I have not seen an image quality difference between these two lens. Canon is committed to quality with their L-series line and the 24-105 f/4 L lives up to it at least for me.
Can I use F4 7.1 on canon R10 camera??? Plz reply me...
I'm looking to upgrade my camera from a 90d to an R series camera body, leaning towards the R6. My plan is to get the 24 to 105 f4 and 70 to 200 f4. I mostly shoot woodland, and i make short "cinematic" hiking videos for TH-cam. My 90d is a great camera but I'm looking to get into full frame and use the 90d as a second camera. Maybe throw a prime or a longer zoom on the 90d, maybe and ef mount 100 to 500 or 600. Sigma makes a 150 to 600 that's caught my eye.
What lenses are you using on the 90d? I had the same plan and now have an r6 with 24-105
@@Gdphoto.info_ A18-200mm f3.5 to 5.6 EF-S lens. Just a long kit lens, but I've been pretty impressed with the images. How do you like the R6?
@@bmcla34 crazy good in low light, you can't crop as much as with the 90d but the images are still amazing. I can get long exposure astro photos hand held with the ibis and a stabilized lens. Definitely want that 70-200
@@Gdphoto.info_ yeah with the 20 mega pixel sensor cropping in is difficult. I try not to crop in too much, so hopefully that won't affect me too much. The low light performance really checks a box for me. I go out into the woods really early in the morning so that will come in handy. My 90d does pretty well at 3,500 iso, but i don't like going above that.
@@bmcla34 i had the same issues, I'm comfortable going up to 10,000 iso now at f4
great different approach to deciding which lens to pick. Especially the insight on the f/4 for video. had all of the information i wanted without any gimmicky stuff. keep making these videos. They're really helpful. I'm surprised your channel doesn't get more traffic
These were some key thoughts! I had the opportunity to swap lenses with a buddy and get off a couple shots with the 24-105. I'm just dipping my toes into RF glass, and I think that lens will replace my 24-70 Tamron AND my starter 15-85. Thanks, mate!
Thank you for expressing your opinion and expertise on the 24-105 F4. I’d added it to my list as I embark into “real photography” 🤣 after starting my channel using only GoPro and my smartphone’s camera upon buying an R8 but wasn’t sure if I was understanding the F4 is throughout the lens focal range or if it was a misprint 😜!
I shoot a lot of corporate, school and general business events and the 24 to 105 is an absolute beast workhorse lens. So if you’re really talking for a beginner, May be smarter to start with the 24 to 105 f/4 and then use the money you save to buy the canon EL1 flash (this is a game changer). The extra range is so much more useful. And frankly they R6 and the R5 do pretty well in low light and I get decent photos close to 10,000 ISO, and grain looks more filmic at that point and it’s still usable in my book. I do generally try not to go much above’s ISO 6400 just as a general rule but have with excellent results and happy clients.
Bought the F4 24 - 105 much lighter and shot a few weddings in churches no problem . Had the 24 to 70 tamron it is lighter than the canon rf 24-70 way to heavy . Also picked up a rf 70-210 f4 and than I bought this lens the size and weight so light and compact don't need the f 2.8 weight
2.8 is pretty overrated unless you literally have a wad of cash at your disposal. These days with F/4 on cameras like the R6, low light is freakin’ superb already. Most people won’t know the difference in quality.
@@indyjones720
All true unless you’re on Safari in fading light with a bunch of restless Lions. Otherwise the F4 which I have is spectacular
So to overcome the issue I switch to Video mode!
I have the EF version of the F4..0 - 24-70 .. I decided to pay under £400.00 and save money instead of buying the RF version. I never use anything below F4.0 because Bokeh is not part of my style. I like the photos sharp, crisp , detailed with a bit of haze in post production. I hate losing information .. at sunny weather I’m in around F16, during day I’m around F5.6 to F8.0. I didn’t need anything faster than F4.0. Plus the RF version lens feel like a toy. Build quality is rubbish. They break it easily whereas EF have always been heavy duty and proven performers. RF has a lot to prove yet at least before I can feel comfortable of spending four figures just for a lens. But I do have the RF 1.8 35 mm for low light conditions, It is cheaper but high quality faster aperture than the 2.8.
I've had a RF 35 and 85 1.4 L for years. Thinking of trading it for one of these for a more all purpose. Just fun / family shooting. Nothing crazy. Worried I'll really miss the extra light coming from those to the 24-105. Would really appreciate that versatility/focal length though. Thoughts?
If you have to freeze motion in difficult lighting, F2.8 can do it, F4 really can't without noisy iso levels, that's the main thing to consider in my opinion.
I have RF 24-105mm f4 with EOS R6 mark II.
I am very satisfied with my buddy’s. Thank you Canon.
When I bought the 24-105 I was surprised at how little difference there was between 70mm and 105mm. Then I opened the aperture to f4 and it was a very bad feeling that it couldn't be opened more ;). I realised that I couldn't live with it. The next day I replaced the lens with a 24-70.
thank you for this vid... I was on the fence & this vid gave me some concrete clarity on my purchase!
what would you recommend for street photography though?
I literally just use the 24-105 L and the 100-500L these days. On the R8 nowadays rather than the R which was always a bit 1st Gen.
I feel like 24-105 with some fast primes might be the way to go.
I have got RF 24-105mm variable aperture and RF35 F1.8. I like travel and I will shoot yoga and workout video and picture. I want to buy more lense and have no idea. 24, 50, 80, 70-200, 24-70, 24-240 all are good. I am still hesitate about prime or zoom
now how will that 24-105 do against the 28-70 f2 =)))))
RF 24-105 or Tamron 24-70 G2?
Good video, so pretty much what you are saying " IF " I understood right... If you are doing weddings and have money, we want to go with tha RF 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, is that correct ? Any chance you have a picture using tha RF 24-70mm f/2.8 and another picture using RF 24-105mm
If you’re shooting weddings and are already looking at the 24-70 2.8 consider the 28-70 2.0. Seriously the F2 throughout makes this lens look like prime lenses.
Great video. I am considering the R3 with the 24 - 70 2.8, and the 70 - 200 2.8, for shooting indoor sports like volleyball and outdoor sports like cross-country. Plus, I expect to use it on the water so weatherproofing is important as well. I like the 28 - 70 2.0 but weight and no stabilization are factors.
awesome content! thank you for sharing! keep up the great work
Choosing 24-70 over 105 because it pairs well with 70-200
Not one photo sample?
The EF24-70mm f/2.8L first series was a massive beast and I wasn’t using it all that much. I considered the later EF24-70 f/4L. When I got the R5, I realized there is no RF24-70mm f/4, so I got the RF24-105mm f/4 which is the closest thing. I was worried the RF24-70mm f/2.8 might weigh the same as the massive beast.
BTW the EF24-70mm f/2.8 was an excellent quality lens but I realized I wasn’t using it as much because it was so bulky. Canon must have had this in mind when they released the mk Ii of this lens and the EF24-70mm f/4L
I have a 24-105 rf 4, I regret to buy it because it does not work very well at low light conditions
Really ?
Very instructive video... It would have been nice to see some samples for the compariso though. Probably next time....
Terrific video! Thanks. I subbed and liked 😉. Congratulations on the son!
If you can afford the 2.8 you should absolutely have f2.8 at your disposal, it makes the lens usable most anywhere, whereas the f4 needs decent light to avoid excessive noise, it's a budget compromise, awesome in decent light, but still a economic compromise.
@@indyjones720 the marginal improvement in high ISO performance is nothing compared to what F2.8 gets you over F4.
If you need to freeze action in low light, f2.8 will allow for clean shots that f4 just can't come close to.
For the most part, f4 is good for at least mediocre light levels, or slower subjects, if you need to shoot with a faster shutter, in low light, no sensor is going to give you super clean results at f4
@@indyjones720 if that makes you feel better about going cheap on your glass, because you spent your money on a new body, you keep telling yourself that.
F2.8 glass is night and day more capable in difficult lighting, than F4 glass, regardless of the sensor you're using, it offers the same exact benefit of double the light gathering to an r6ii sensor, as it does to a 5D sensor.
This isn't even factoring in other IQ upgrades that typically come with the jump up to f2.8 glass, or bokeh renderings that f2.8 offers over f4.
The only reason to choose an f4 lens over an f2.8 lens is budget, and sensitivity to weight, optically they are in another league.
@@G95G95 that’s pretty rude to say I went cheap on glass for buying an RF 24-105 F4. You sound like a spoiled rich brat who was given everything. This convo is done.
Best of both worlds setup in my opinion is the RF 24-70 paired with the EF 24-105 adapted to RF. The EF lens has been nothing short of fantastic paired to my RF bodies
I think the RF 14-35mm f/4 lens doesn't need a lock for the same reason I like it, it has a very short throw and the barrel of the lens is hardly exposed when fully extended. It makes me believe that it's the safest zoom lens I own in terms of risk of things getting dragged inside of the lens body when extending and retracting the lens.
Been tempted to sell my 24-105 for the 24-70. Haven't since I do a lot of hybrid and it being lighter is great for video. If I need something fast and for events then I feel I can get it done with the 15-35 & 70-200 2.8s. For my overland trips the 24-105 & 100-500 has me covered. Throw in the 15-35 for astro and I'm completely covered. Anyways great vids my man and congrats on the new kiddo! Kids are the best and enjoy the ride!
Looking very much forward to trying the 24-70 and 28-70 for fun, but still very happy with the 24-105 after a few years. Despite missing RF f1.4s and some other notable RF holes, the good news is that with the 16mm, Canon now has a bunch of the affordable, fast prime options to pair with the 24-105. The one downside for me - I would like the 24-70 for that f2.8 at 24mm for the occasional astro. I've sat on the decision for a long time as I learn about what shooting I like best, but will likely consolidate my wider primes with the 15-35. Just wish it had the lock!!
It's almost insulting to diminish what you can do with these lenses for film making to apply them only to TH-cam, Instagram and that garbage.
After seeing this video, I'm almost leaning toward 24-105mm. My focus is creating video content for Instagram reels.
I have both of these lenses 😊
Which one is sharper man😊😊
Which one is better bro?
They should have a lock but they don’t! 😂
Im trying to get my channel going lol
🔥
The price for both lenses are not cheap, the RF 24-105 mm 4.0 starting at around $1,300, then add the camera, and this will stop, perhaps 99.5% of all people to buy and use this system for TikTok or other social medias, when the cell phone will do just fine. These are professional lenses, despite that the EF/RF 24-105 mm 4.0 carries the "kit" label. Now, the RF 28-70 mm 2.0 carries a stout $3,099 price tag, and is a specialized lens for top level professionals. The alternative, with great results, would be the EF 24-70 mm 2.8 for much less, but still not a recommended lens for the general hobbyist.
28 70 >