I own 2470F2.8, 24105F4 and 2870F2. I do think that F4 version is underrated. it is small, lightweight and a good focal length of compression at 85 and 105. It is much flattering. and good to carry and use. remember, the best camera and lens are the one that is always with you.
I have a 24-105 F4 for the the last 2 years. With R6, it's a great companion during travels, hiking, city sightseeing. Recently I bought the 24-70 F2.8 to give it a try but I have returned it the next day it arrived. It was simply to big and I knew that I would not take it with me for many occasions because of it's size.
You're right - when choosing your first lens for a new camera you want it all, but you have to choose. Thanks for walking us through your choice and making the images available for detailed study.
I recently upgraded my equipment. My budget was around $3500 USD. With that I could get the R6Ii and the 24-105 F4 or the R8 and the 24-70 F2.8. When I chose to go with the R6II, I knew I would lose that extra stop of light on the lens, but gained back a few extra stops with IBIS and could replicate the bokeh in most scenarios by stepping back and zooming in more.
For me, the cost/benefit came down to 2.8 vs 4.0 and the extra reach. My most frequent use was for indoor sports where 2.8 lenses have ruled for years. In making my decision, I considered the much improved high ISO capabilities of today’s cameras as well as the fantastic noise reduction options now available in post processing. Considering these factors I traded one stop of light for greater reach and I have not regretted my decision. The 24-105 is a great all round lens and (for me at least) the significant cost savings is a bonus.
Hi Darrell, sorry to bother you with a late response but do you still use the 24-105 for indoor sport photography? I’m looking to buy it for the same reason and am wondering how well it works.
Great test and video. That's a lot of money for a bit more cream. Before the R5 I had the 5DS and the EF 24-70 F2.8. When I went mirrorless with the R5, I sold my EF lenses and bought the RF 24-105 F4. It's my base lens I use for walkarounds, some portraiture, and all around photography. I like the little bit of extra reach when I need it. and the cream level suits me fine even losing a stop.
loved the format, presentation and general style. easy sub. i've only had a proper camera for a little over a month, but these comparisons make it substantially easier to know where to best spend the cash
Great video. I am a hobby wildlife photografer with the Canon R6M2 with the RF 100-500mm 4.5-7.1 L and the RF 24-105 mm f4 L. For wildlife I use the 100-500MM mostly. The 24-105 for citytrip and other common things. I do think that for portrets the f 2.8 should be the winner for the background. As for me I like the 100-500MM and the 24-105 for the things I do with them. Greatings Leo from Holland.
Thanks for that, I've been using the RF 24-105 f4 on my R6 as my travel kit as well as my general purpose kit, but never considered it for portraiture. Your video has given me more confidence to use this very versatile lens instead of my RF 100 2.8 Macro or Tamron 24-70 2.8. Thanks again.
Thanks Mark, great video. Being weighing up between these two and same for the 70-200. Now leaning to the 24-105 just for that extra reach and only needing to take 1 lens at times and then would potentially get the 70-200 f2.8.
Have used the EF versions of both lenses extensively, appreciate this real-world test of the RF glass. When I take the plunge, it’ll be the 24-105 f4 coming home with me!
4 years ago I transitioned to mirrorless and ordered the R5 and 24-105 L. I received the 24-105 4 months before the R5. For 3 years I was a happy landscaper. Then I photographed blue hour city scapes with a buddy who was using a Nikon Z9 and 24-120 f4 and I could see the Nikon images were superior. In Lightroom versus Nikon, highlights (streetlights) on my images looked like a small amount of Vaseline had been applied! I tested my other lenses (14-35,70-200 f4,100-500 and 85 f2) and highlights were all good. As a CPS member living in LA I was able to take my camera and lens to Canon to be checked out. The lens was “in spec”. I then purchased the RF 24-70 to test against my 24-105. To my eye the 24-70 blew the 24-105 away in sharpness and contrast. I sold the 24-105. I really miss its light weight and versatility, but am blown away by the 24-70 images. Wow
This is exactly what I'm worried about as I make the jump from EF to RF. I've used the EF 24-105 f-4 for travel for 10+ years and enjoyed its versatility. I can't decide whether I should forgo some focal length for the apparently sharper RF 24-70 f/2.8 now. I feel I'd miss the longer end of things, even though I often travel with a longer lens to swap out when needed (but that does require swapping out, and sometimes it might be left in the car/hotel).
I can to a similar conclusion. I felt that even in the studio, the 24-105/4 images were not up to par when compared with the 24-70/2.8 . BTW. This video is all but obsolete with the arrival of the 24-105/2.8. Expensive and a bit bulkier, but I like the focal range. damn near perfect in my studio.
I have a different problem, my 24-105 F4 is exceptionally sharp, whereas 24-70 2.8 a bit soft on 2.8 and really sharp from F4... Maybe I'll sell 24-70 2.8 and I'll buy 28-70 F2 as my current lenses are too similar
What do you think about my comment as above. I really love the mastery of this video, it shows a clear winner. The proofs are unequivocal. However the conclusion given is pretty suprising at best, mesmerising otherwise... Regards. Romain photographer based in New Zealand.
Great video, very practical. I have been delighted with the 24-105 paired with the R6 Mk2. Like many others it is my go to lens - brilliant as a walk around lens, great for holidays and very versatile. That review is the most simple and easy to understand that I have seen 5 stars from me. The budget for this lens is a no brainer as is the size and weight difference compared to the 24-70. I am sure the extra F stop in the 24 - 70 will be essential for some but not for me. I am very satisfied with what I get from the lens and camera combination. Keep them coming Marc - well done
I have the Canon f4.0 24-105mm, bought it back in 2008, just love it. This video was really interesting to see that really the differences are very small and as you said only really about the amount blurriness in the background. I think if you have lots of money and the price is not really important then buy both, else buy the 24-70mm.
Great comparison video. Nice to see that we can achieve essentially the same photo out of both lenses in good lighting. After using my RF 24-105 f/4 for a year, I decided that what I was needing more than f/2.8 was even greater zoom flexibility to go quickly between group and individuals in situations where you can't get too close, nor do you have the space to freely move around. My Tamron 35-150 f/2.8-4 is a brilliant solution in such situations, and the IQ seems nearly identical to the RF lens at the same focal lengths. The Sony guys have gone somewhat head over heels for their Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 that they can get for their E mount cameras - it comes up in almost every thread talking about general zooms for Sony full frames that I see...
Great video. Loved it. I have both these lenses …. I use the 24-105 on my R8 and did use the 24-70 on my R5 until I sold it. I am constantly torn between the two but the 24-105 is the one that wins. It is just so much more flexible. I love shallow dof but the faster the lens the bigger and heavier. I did have a 28-70 f2. What a lens that is but it sat in my camera bag as just too heavy to carry round so was sold sadly.
Firstly: this video is amazingly well-made at extremely high resolution, and this is exactly what I was looking for, and this has made my mind. An absolute conclusion that the 24-105 is far less contrasted. And had less sharpness, especially at 70mm. I mean the mastery with which this video is made, crafted edited and those portraits, shots are so professional, the light and editing spot on, the eye is there, of a true experienced professional undoubtedly. Whom with such a skilled eye would not, at the very least, make a distinction between that night and day landslide of a difference, when it comes to headshots at 70mm/105mm. At the very least, a distinction, needs to be made, between day and night and almost a tie: e.g. "fair enough, for full body shots the difference is almost a tie it seems, or negligible somehow"... something along those lines? Again there is no argument, in my honest opinion the headshots are day and night. But again do not trust me, just trust the screenshots as above. I have re-watched this video on and on and taken multiple screenshot in 4k. As follows in the Google Drive link above. Honestly same conclusion. If I make myself, one makes oneself advocate of the devil the one could say at best that the 24-105mm has far less pronounced contract and micro contrast which is to me even more important, out of the box, no editing ; important to get great looking - with CLARITY - photos. And this is the same difference I have seen when trying an EF 24-70mm on my canon 6D (old and low-res but still could see a significant contrast/micro contrast) difference ! Extremely clear to me. And on this video times and times and times again, the screenshot taken of it are showing absolutely clear superior contrast on the face, eye catch light, and even more on the hat fabric/pattern. I am mesmerised when about 10 to 15 times is repeated in that video that the lenses are the same... It might seem overly critical, it is not what I mean to be at all, but I will say the thought that genuinely came to mind, repetitions after repetitions, not just 2 or 3 or 4 times, but about 10-15 times that both lenses are practically the same. Without distinction between the day and night headshots vs. the longer distance full body shots, again almost a tie. Yet, contrast/micro-contrast differences are still obvious. But not, no distinction is made, which is mesmerising given the level of skill of the photographer. But this makes me wondering: is this video for any reason an advert for the Canon 24-105? Romain from New Zealand, semi-pro photographer for the last 15 years, not making a living out of it but paying for trips and gear, and having done multiple paid assignments, sold printed posters, dozens of events between Europe and NZ, so not anyone to stand out, but speaking with a decent amount of experience I believe.
I really liked the last shot of her. 105mm f4 Headshot! For the money and the added reach advantage of 105mm when you need it, I think it's fantastic away from the studio, but I can really see the advantage of the 24-70 f2.8 for studio work!
So I’ve been using my dad’s 24-105 f/4 with the R5 I bought a year ago. I freaking love this lens. It is so versatile. So, I just purchased the Canon RF 24-105mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z Lens. I’ll let you know what I think. If you give a care, shoot me a note so I do not forget.
@@joshuazimmer44 Not good actually. I used it for a week and returned it. There was just too much lens distortion for me. I went with an RF 70-200mm f/2.8. Love it.
Thanks for the review - I found it much more useful than the strait detailed lens reviews to have the same subject, same photo side by side. It would be great to see a similar comparison with the 24-240
Thank you for posting! I would be curious to know how much of a difference there is between the lenses in a low light situation (e.g. a dance hall for a wedding celebration).
I purchased the R6 Mark 2 recently with the adaptor to use my EF lens (24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8, etc). I don't regret buying the adaptor but now considering an R lens for the image stabilization not in my EF 24-70. Thanks to your comparison, I'm convince that the 24-105 is the right (new) primary lens for my R6 Mark 2. One consideration that I don't think you mentioned is the improved low light (interior) advantage of the 2.8 such as a church with low light and prohibited flash. Not an issue for me though, since I typically use my 70-200 2.8 in those circumstances. Ordering the 24-105 4.0 today. Thanks again!
happy amature here. Got the 24-105 with my R6 but was really never happy with it. Prefer a lighter prime when traveling and the f4 was always to dark to use indoors. Ended up selling it and getting the 24-70 instead. Much more versitile even though it's lacking the reach.
24-70 2.8 is a pro workhorse lens that whenever you need extra stop light. Think the cost effective of a 24-105 + 50 1.8 + 85 2 still less a 24-70 2.8 and the 3 lens combo would more beneficial for your photography.
I like this approach with the versatility of the 85 and 50 to pair with the 24-105. The quality of the 24-105 in the RF mount is really outstanding. Interesting though many portrait and wedding pros I know seem to like using the RF 28-70 f2 which isn’t much more than the 24-70 2.8.
I’m a beginner shooting with the R6 Mark II and the RF 85mm F2.8 currently. I am looking at selling it and buying one of these 2 lenses but my question is if, with the blur feature in Lightroom buying the 25-70 just because of that F2.8 would truly be a game changer and justified?
I have the f/4 trio of lenses . As a hobbyist who mostly does travel and landscape they generally meet my needs. Usually if I am shooting portraits I rely on the 105 focal length for the very reasons you have explained.
I bought RF 24-105 f4L, it is a good all around lens. But I immediately sold it after I tried RF 24-70 f2.8L. For me personally, it is worth the extra cost for an additional f-stop. More background blur and better low light performance are important for me .
As the video clearly shows there's no "performance" difference if you mean sharpness they are the same The background blur can be enhanced in post with a single click so for me the extra reach is far more important. I think Mark's excellent real world test shows both are excellent lenses and get what works best for you. I did and saved £1200!
If I were a professional and did a lot of portraits, etc., I'd probably go for the 24-70. However, since I'm just a hobbiest, and like to shoot a wide range of subjects, I find that the extra focal range is more important to me than the extra stop of light. Thus, I bought my R5 with the RF 24-105 F4. Later I bought the 85mm f/2 which, along with my existing EF 50 f/1.4 are great for the occassional grandchild portrait.
Excellent video and very useful comparisons between these two lenses. Personally, I prefer the 24-105 mm F4 because it is a great walk around lens and offers a wider range of focal lengths.
Great video Mark. I've recently upgraded to a R6 Mii from a 7D Mii. I've got a 24-105 ef L lens. Is there a big enough difference in the rf lens 24-105 to consider?
I have the 24-105 and use the techniques I learned from your beginner course to get a great background blur. In my opinion, spending extra money on the 2.8 would not be worth it.
Great comparison Mark. thanks for sharing... What is your view on the rf24-70 f2 ??? That's a beast ... is there a marked difference between f2 and f2.8?
I chose the R24-105. The focal length overlaps my EF 17-35 at one end and my Diffractive Optics EF 70-300 at the other. Very pleased with it. I don’t think I’ll use the extra stop often enough of the 24-70. Matt, Whitstable, UK.
Great comparison video and I acknowledge your findings and opinion. I have always used the EF 24-70 2.8 early version and traded up to the series ll and complement with the 70-200 2.8 ll I appreciate the extra stop as I frequently shoot in low / lower light. For almost 4 years now, I have been using EOS R-5 and have never felt the urge to upgrade my robust EF lenses to the RF lenses. Thank you and Keep up the great work 😊
Would love to see a comparison on benefits of the extra stop for landscape photography. I have the 24-105 4-7.1 and it did well for travel photography.
Nice and clear compare! I'm make photos most at events, indoor. So using f2.8 lenses (15-35, 24-70 and 70-200) on my R5. The extra stop is very welcome. The 24-105 is a very nice lens for outside (travel) and studio photos. Why you edit DNG files in Lightroom and not the CR3 files?
Thanks for sharing now I know that I don't need them probably because I'm not doing weddings or events. I do families, and single person portraits and I have 85 and 35 and or 50 so I have time to switch out lenses ❤
For my paid work, I'm still using my EF L lenses, but as I look towards retirement, I'm selecting lenses that will suit me better for size and weight. The 24-105 I've had for 5 years now, and I'm very happy with its performance. It's sharp enough, does well for portraits at 105, and is great for landscapes. I've two other RF f4L lenses, the 70-200 which is beautifully compact, and the 10-20, which is simply astonishing.
I have owned the 24-70mm f2.8 and the 24-105mm f4, albeit it Sony. I am a simple photography enthusiast and my preferred choice is the latter. The slight difference in background blur is not significant so far as I am concerned. I enjoyed the comparison - thank you.
Regarding the image at 22:20, one thing in favor of the 70mm shot is that you get more of the background in with the same framing and you have those leading lines of the fence which add some visual interest.
22:20 I also like the look at 105mm. One thing to keep in mind though is the working distance from subject. On the 70mm, I'm guessing it's around 3.5 meters. And at 105mm you'd have to be around 5.5m. So from a good deal away to quite far away. For a shot like that, I'd rather use a 50mm, get closer, and shoot at f/1.4 or f/2 to really blur the background (if that's what I was looking for) or maybe the 85mm at 4m away at f/1.4 will really give you that magical blur.
Just curious, if you compare both lens but only use both lenses with focal length range of 24-70mm at F/4, will the result be more or less identical? I guess for those who doesn't need the extra stop down to F2.8, then 24-105 f/4 would work well.
Thank you for the video. Question? I have the canon r5 with rf50mm f1.2. The adapted ef 70 to 200 f2.8. I need a wider lens for videos. Would you suggest the 24-105?
ok just bumped into this video and the channel. Shooting for 11 years but amateur as nothing. I mean amateur. And I'm jumping to the FF world. Not only I'm a complete amateur but also I'm comparatively poor to dare to have a camera not to mention a FF one. It's a dream of a lifetime and I will stick with that. Like for ever. So Yes I'm gonna do it and here we are trying to figure out from videos whether I'm gonna get a 24-70 2.8 or 24-105 4. Choosing L mount was a choice of being cheaper by A LOT. I can get away with 2790 euros and getting a body, one of these two lenses and a TTL Godox flash!!! NOT BAD! And yes both lenses are at the same price. A Sigma 24-70 mark ii and a Panasonic S 24-105. So I want to thank you for this video. You shot in bright light , using a reflector which I will never have, and at 70mm the f4 lense you just have to lower the speed to 1/250 and bump the ISO at 200. I will never get a reflector. I just move around and SHOOT. ANYTHING. You just have to connect your heart to your eye. And these figures are more than enough for me to choose the 24-70. Thanks man. I mean the situations vary so dramatically that you really can't depend on how your camera will perform in low light and speed. I'm poor remember? I'll get one lense and maybe a second later much later on. I'm not a photographer either. I'm not getting paid it's not my job. I'm nobody. An amateur. And I'm old...rushing to my 60s. So picking the right gear for day night for inside the woods or under a bridge or inside a church or a cathedral, yes I'm in Europe, is everything for me. I can't just crank the ISO up, lower the speed and hoping the camera will do it's trick. I'm not jumping to the FF to make my photos look the same like a Huawei phone. I got to be careful. I can't experiment with lenses and then write my opinion. Oh that was not so good. It's life threatening scenario man. I don't have the budget and when I will start having second thoughts about my purchase... what if...this will literally kill me man. So I'm wasting my life my sleep my everything watching reviews and videos for months and months if not years. I'm watching with my soul. And my soul is what is in stake here. So I got to be careful. 24-70 it is. And perhaps an even faster prime. One. Which one ? Time will tell. And if I want more reach well this will be the second lense I'm saving for. And it's going to be either a 70-300 variable aperture or a 70-200 4. Price and my soul will be the judge. But I'm leaning on the 70-300. It's a day time lense with this kind of reach and some low light. some. Well these are my thoughts. Thnx for the video it was enough for me. And that was my translation. Light is everything.
@@mrsuperselenio5694 yep.. maybe its because i do a lot of video and photo as my everyday job. :) Switching lenses all the time is a hassle and you miss stuff. The weight and price is worth it. (Im getting it as soon as possible) The RF 24-105 and the RF 15-35
@@baekmedier I fixed that issue with a second body R5 main and R secondary. Now I keep a wide lense could be 35mm/50mm/ 24-105 f4, mostly the last one as main and on my second body 95% of the time its my 70-200mm f2.8. For video I vary a little bit depending on what I am filming or an specific shot. Also if one camera breaks, I always have a back up, while if I got the lense, apart from the weight and money, I can't afford that thing to stop working.
@@mrsuperselenio5694 Yeah I own the R5C, R3 and two C70 video cameras for corporate interviews. Use speedboosters on the C70s for "full frame" and ND adaptor for the R5C for "build in NDs" :) I do a lot og both photo and video. Some projects need the low aperture wide angle like my EF24mm f1.4... some EF16-35 f 2.8 mark 2.. but also the Ef 50 f.1.4 or EF 85 F.1.2 sports I use the 70-200 mark 3 F2.8 and some the RF 100-500.. sometimes I need to bring the whole bag, and sometimes only the videocameras and one photo camera.. But In the future in my professional projects im going to switch everything to having two cameras and two lenses.. - c400 (26 MP, C-log 2, full frame RF mount) - R1 (26 MP, C-log 2, full frame RF mount) - RF 15-35 f. 2.8 - RF 24-105 f 2.8
RF has several disadvantages : you can add MANY functions if you use EF adaptors - adding a new control ring to your camers, adding rear filters to ALL your lenses, adding tilt shift capabilty to ALL your lenses and MANY more functions . There is NO UPSIDE to buying RF lenses
The only real argument are rear filters and they really are a big advantage, but it's also mostly for video. If I was doing video, I'd be definitely looking to snatch EF lenses over RF. Sadly not much of a benefit to me. As for control rings, not really an argument in favor of the EF lenses, as these lenses come with control rings built into them. It's not a benefit over RF lenses since they already have it. And if I'm being honest, the actual use case for control rings is well, sketchy. The cameras (at least the FF ones and the R7 at least) already have 3 dials, so anything in regards to exposure is already covered with that, and to activate the control ring you are required to press a button. I was intending to use mine as a WB control ring, but I need to press a button to activate the ring, which kind of defeats the purpose of it since I already had a button mapped to that on the record button and can do it with 2 fingers. It's even less work than the lens control ring because to turn the ring I need to move my hand that supports the lens towards the front of it. Having it on the adapter would make it even worse. And the menu options for the ring aren't amazing either, it's not as customizable as the rest of the camera's buttons/dials. "There is NO UPSIDE to buying RF lenses" It might seem like that based on paper specs, but my RF 24-70 is considerably faster and more accurate in terms of focusing compared to my 3 other EF lenses (70-200 IS III, 85/1.4 L IS and 35/2 IS) which are no slouches either. It makes them feel dated. It simply has better focusing motors AND better stabilization. It's also far more quiet, it's practically dead silent. When I use the other 3 lenses, I can hear them chirp while focusing, I can hear the IS motors, I can literally feel them vibrate in my hands as I use them (especially the 70-200 and the IS on it). I do think EF is still better value for the money (which is why I bought these, because getting everything in the RF mount was out of the question, budget-wise), but the 24-70 I got is worth every dime if you ask me, and I will definitely look to updating everything to RF in the foreseeable future. These serve me well for now.
Adding tilt shift to all my lenses was a game changer for mr, especillay for video. Best of luck with your RF journey. I'm sticking to my '2 for 1' EF choice !
Great comparison, although the people who like to split hairs (myself included) would likely choose the f2.8, Canons pricing is simply too high. Always has been but even more so now, especially for those in the US facing this trash economy. I personally am looking for a good size/form factor as well so I can travel with it. Seem like the 24-105mm is well worth it especially the used price. Thanks for the in depth review!
What a fantastic real world test thank you backed up the decision I made the extra reach the 24-105 F4 gives me for street photography is absolutely invaluable. Funnily I met a real camera snob last week who had the 2.8 and he made the comment "oh you have the kit lens" 😡 Yes I replied and saved £1200 which got me the battery grip and a flashgun. With the low light performance of this camera the reach is far more important to me than an extra stop I will be able to get the shot while you are trying to get closer to the subject or swapping lenses for your 70-200. As long as you are happy that's fine, I know I made the right choice for me thanks 😂 Really excellent no nonsense in the field test thank you Mark. As for Bokeh and background blur it can be added with a single click in post so there's that advantage of the 2.8 dealt with as well!
Between the 85, 135 and 70-200, I’m pretty much covered for all my portraiture needs so wouldn’t really know what to do with a 24-105. Although I own and use the 24-70 2.8, I prefer the look of the 35 1.4 and 50 1.2. The 16-35 2.8 takes care of my wide angle needs, so the only way I’d be able to justify a 24-105 purchase would be to have a good do-it-all travel lens for personal use. I can also see this as a good option for someone just starting out on their photography journey.
Thank you for the video, I really appreciate it as I'm just getting into mirrorless and was debating on whether I had to spend the extra $1,100 for the 24-70 to pair with my (new to me) D6m1. I think the 24-105 is going to be just fine....I will say however for your SPECIFIC test, I preferred the composition of the 24-70 at 70mm to the 24-105 at 105.....Seeing more of the winding path behind the model just added some depth to the photo that the tighter zoom at 105 didn't, even if that's what it took to even out the bokeh.
I noticed when you pan with 24-105, there was stuttering. Does 24-70 have same problem? I like to shoot video. I am just hesitating which lens I will buy. Thanks.
Great review, good attention to detail. Keep them coming. On another note, since WEX helped getting this video done (great to see that), has anyone had any experience buying USED GEAR from WEX? Im thinking of getting R6 MK II used, but a bit hesitant. But its £1k in price difference that could be used towards lenses. Any info would be appreciated.
Thanks for the info and idea, I have the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Art and the RF 24-105 f/4. I going on a party cruise to take some family photos and was on the fence about which lens to take. And after making a similar comparison between the two with my trusted mannequin bust. My results are about to same on the telephoto side.
Well done. I have both using Canon R6 Mark II. Lighting availability helps me decide which lens to mount (first). I use f/4, 24-105 for outside work (mostly). I use f/2.8. 24-70 for inside work (mostly). Can do professional quality work with either lens. Canon digital shooter for 20 years. Not a pro. Retired engineer. Photography gets me out of the house.
one other point, the 105 isn't just more focal range, as 105 is a macro focal length (I shoot Nikon, and 105 is their tele macro in the range, 60 the other), so MINIMUM aperture is also a consideration, as in the 105 prime case, f 32 Vs f22 or f16 so getting wider dof, and also having f22 actually being diffraction free (as it's not the last f stop on the range), is advantageous, saving work in post, or giving extra light stopping ability (without resorting to ND's, so keeping image quality).
24 mm is not wide enough, I prefer the 14-35 F4L in a combo with the 50mm F1.8 and the 70-200 F4L. For outside portraits there’s no need to go RF - the EF 135mm F2 is a forever lens.
For those newbies wondering, the 24-105 f4 L has better IQ than 28-70 f2.8 . That extra stop and background separation isn't as dramatic as F2 or 1.8. You are better off with 105 @f4 and also mirrorless cameras are getting better and better with iso tolerance so f4 isn't a big deal (in practical day to day use)
Nice review! I have the RF 24-105. I like it. The 24-70 f2.8 is a nice lens, but put it on your camera and walk around the zoo for a few hours. I would be willing to bet you may like the 24-105 a whole lot more. It is lighter. With the ISO performance of the R5 and R6, I see little problem. If I was doing a ton of indoor nightclub/band shoots, I may opt for a 24-70, but right now, I am good with my choice.
I think with ideal lighting I prefer the F4 lens. In a professional scenario where you need to get the shot even in less than ideal lighting condition than I'd go for the f2.8. But to be honest with the way my R6ii handles ISO I prefer the lighter weight and longer zoom of the 24-105. I think my next purchase is going to be the 70-200 f4. I love my 24-105 f4.
The DOF is only bound to the physical size of the aperture. f4 @ 105mm gives 26,25mm and the f2.8 @ 70mm gives 25mm. (Larger aperture equals a smaller DOF. A few years ago, I drew these lens ray diagrams to determine whether the depth of field changes when the focal length doubles and the sensor dimensions double (constant FOV), but the lens diameter remains the same. And guess what? The images turned out exactly the same. Proving that not the f-number, but the physical size of the aperture is the only variable determining DOF.
I shoot at 5.6 LOL its just enough for separation but everything is sharp One of the best comparison videos I have seen.Thank You oh so f4 24-105 deal done save LOL
I had the EF 24-70 F2.8 and when moved to the R I sold it and bough the RF 24-105 F4 L. Had it since it came out and mostly used for travel. Honestly never been happy with the edge performance and I think its time I swap it out for the F2.8 RF. I see photos from Sony and Nikon with their 24-105 and 24-120 and the photos look crips edge to edge so I dont know if its just my lens or I'm too picky. I tested between F8 and F11 and still not happy with it when shooting landscape or city photos during my travels. I was trying to keep the lens light but I think edge to edge sharpness is more important now. I shoot with the R5 and the R6Mk2. I also have the RF 70-200F4 which is much better edge to edge.
I own 2470F2.8, 24105F4 and 2870F2. I do think that F4 version is underrated. it is small, lightweight and a good focal length of compression at 85 and 105. It is much flattering. and good to carry and use. remember, the best camera and lens are the one that is always with you.
The 24-105 is my travel lens of choice.
I have a 24-105 F4 for the the last 2 years. With R6, it's a great companion during travels, hiking, city sightseeing. Recently I bought the 24-70 F2.8 to give it a try but I have returned it the next day it arrived. It was simply to big and I knew that I would not take it with me for many occasions because of it's size.
You're right - when choosing your first lens for a new camera you want it all, but you have to choose. Thanks for walking us through your choice and making the images available for detailed study.
You're welcome, glad it helped 👍
I recently upgraded my equipment. My budget was around $3500 USD. With that I could get the R6Ii and the 24-105 F4 or the R8 and the 24-70 F2.8. When I chose to go with the R6II, I knew I would lose that extra stop of light on the lens, but gained back a few extra stops with IBIS and could replicate the bokeh in most scenarios by stepping back and zooming in more.
I’m with you on the choice of combo
For me, the cost/benefit came down to 2.8 vs 4.0 and the extra reach. My most frequent use was for indoor sports where 2.8 lenses have ruled for years. In making my decision, I considered the much improved high ISO capabilities of today’s cameras as well as the fantastic noise reduction options now available in post processing. Considering these factors I traded one stop of light for greater reach and I have not regretted my decision. The 24-105 is a great all round lens and (for me at least) the significant cost savings is a bonus.
Thanks for sharing Darrell 👍
Hi Darrell, sorry to bother you with a late response but do you still use the 24-105 for indoor sport photography? I’m looking to buy it for the same reason and am wondering how well it works.
Great test and video. That's a lot of money for a bit more cream. Before the R5 I had the 5DS and the EF 24-70 F2.8. When I went mirrorless with the R5, I sold my EF lenses and bought the RF 24-105 F4. It's my base lens I use for walkarounds, some portraiture, and all around photography. I like the little bit of extra reach when I need it. and the cream level suits me fine even losing a stop.
Thanks for sharing Jim 👍
Great comparison! I’ve been looking at these two lens and this has been very helpful.
Great to hear!
loved the format, presentation and general style. easy sub. i've only had a proper camera for a little over a month, but these comparisons make it substantially easier to know where to best spend the cash
Thanks for the sub!
Great video. I am a hobby wildlife photografer with the Canon R6M2 with the RF 100-500mm 4.5-7.1 L and the RF 24-105 mm f4 L. For wildlife I use the 100-500MM mostly. The 24-105 for citytrip and other common things. I do think that for portrets the f 2.8 should be the winner for the background. As for me I like the 100-500MM and the 24-105 for the things I do with them. Greatings Leo from Holland.
Thanks for sharing Leo 👍
Thanks for that, I've been using the RF 24-105 f4 on my R6 as my travel kit as well as my general purpose kit, but never considered it for portraiture. Your video has given me more confidence to use this very versatile lens instead of my RF 100 2.8 Macro or Tamron 24-70 2.8. Thanks again.
Glad it was helpful!
Thanks Mark, great video.
Being weighing up between these two and same for the 70-200.
Now leaning to the 24-105 just for that extra reach and only needing to take 1 lens at times and then would potentially get the 70-200 f2.8.
Glad to help John ☺️
it's the best Review and Comparison I have ever seen for these two focal lengths. you Rock!
Thanks 😊 🙏
Good comparison, I chose the 24-70 f2.8 because I have the 70-200 f2.8, they make a nice combo!
Thanks for sharing 👍
Same here)
Same here as well. 👍
um but the price .... of both is a little eye watering
I've got 70-200 f2.8 and I think I'll pair it with a 24-105 F4
Have used the EF versions of both lenses extensively, appreciate this real-world test of the RF glass.
When I take the plunge, it’ll be the 24-105 f4 coming home with me!
4 years ago I transitioned to mirrorless and ordered the R5 and 24-105 L. I received the 24-105 4 months before the R5. For 3 years I was a happy landscaper. Then I photographed blue hour city scapes with a buddy who was using a Nikon Z9 and 24-120 f4 and I could see the Nikon images were superior. In Lightroom versus Nikon, highlights (streetlights) on my images looked like a small amount of Vaseline had been applied! I tested my other lenses (14-35,70-200 f4,100-500 and 85 f2) and highlights were all good. As a CPS member living in LA I was able to take my camera and lens to Canon to be checked out. The lens was “in spec”. I then purchased the RF 24-70 to test against my 24-105. To my eye the 24-70 blew the 24-105 away in sharpness and contrast. I sold the 24-105. I really miss its light weight and versatility, but am blown away by the 24-70 images. Wow
This is exactly what I'm worried about as I make the jump from EF to RF. I've used the EF 24-105 f-4 for travel for 10+ years and enjoyed its versatility. I can't decide whether I should forgo some focal length for the apparently sharper RF 24-70 f/2.8 now. I feel I'd miss the longer end of things, even though I often travel with a longer lens to swap out when needed (but that does require swapping out, and sometimes it might be left in the car/hotel).
I can to a similar conclusion. I felt that even in the studio, the 24-105/4 images were not up to par when compared with the 24-70/2.8 .
BTW. This video is all but obsolete with the arrival of the 24-105/2.8. Expensive and a bit bulkier, but I like the focal range. damn near perfect in my studio.
I have a different problem, my 24-105 F4 is exceptionally sharp, whereas 24-70 2.8 a bit soft on 2.8 and really sharp from F4... Maybe I'll sell 24-70 2.8 and I'll buy 28-70 F2 as my current lenses are too similar
@@shopafelicWell you could just save up, go to the gym and get the new RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z
Many Thanks for this great video. Based on this video I’m going to get the 24-105, it’ll suit my landscape and hiking.
Very good test as far as showing the pros and cons of those zoom ranges are concerned 👍🏻
Excellent job
Excellent test. The canon r5 is still a very good camera and that photo taken with the RF 24-105mm f4 at 105 is fantastic.
Thanks 🙏
I bought 24-105, returned it to the shop the next day and bought 24-70. And I have no regrets.
What do you think about my comment as above. I really love the mastery of this video, it shows a clear winner. The proofs are unequivocal. However the conclusion given is pretty suprising at best, mesmerising otherwise... Regards. Romain photographer based in New Zealand.
Great video, very practical. I have been delighted with the 24-105 paired with the R6 Mk2. Like many others it is my go to lens - brilliant as a walk around lens, great for holidays and very versatile. That review is the most simple and easy to understand that I have seen 5 stars from me. The budget for this lens is a no brainer as is the size and weight difference compared to the 24-70. I am sure the extra F stop in the 24 - 70 will be essential for some but not for me. I am very satisfied with what I get from the lens and camera combination. Keep them coming Marc - well done
Thanks Mike 🙏
I have the 24-105 and I am quite happy with the DOF of it. It’s a great all around lens. For me it’s the extra reach that helped make my decision
I started with ND filters that I found eventually. Enjoyed the test to better understand my canon lenses😊
I have the Canon f4.0 24-105mm, bought it back in 2008, just love it. This video was really interesting to see that really the differences are very small and as you said only really about the amount blurriness in the background. I think if you have lots of money and the price is not really important then buy both, else buy the 24-70mm.
Great comparison video. Nice to see that we can achieve essentially the same photo out of both lenses in good lighting. After using my RF 24-105 f/4 for a year, I decided that what I was needing more than f/2.8 was even greater zoom flexibility to go quickly between group and individuals in situations where you can't get too close, nor do you have the space to freely move around. My Tamron 35-150 f/2.8-4 is a brilliant solution in such situations, and the IQ seems nearly identical to the RF lens at the same focal lengths. The Sony guys have gone somewhat head over heels for their Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 that they can get for their E mount cameras - it comes up in almost every thread talking about general zooms for Sony full frames that I see...
Great video. Loved it. I have both these lenses …. I use the 24-105 on my R8 and did use the 24-70 on my R5 until I sold it. I am constantly torn between the two but the 24-105 is the one that wins. It is just so much more flexible. I love shallow dof but the faster the lens the bigger and heavier. I did have a 28-70 f2. What a lens that is but it sat in my camera bag as just too heavy to carry round so was sold sadly.
Thanks for sharing John 👍
Thank you for taking the time to do this.
My pleasure!
Firstly: this video is amazingly well-made at extremely high resolution, and this is exactly what I was looking for, and this has made my mind. An absolute conclusion that the 24-105 is far less contrasted. And had less sharpness, especially at 70mm.
I mean the mastery with which this video is made, crafted edited and those portraits, shots are so professional, the light and editing spot on, the eye is there, of a true experienced professional undoubtedly. Whom with such a skilled eye would not, at the very least, make a distinction between that night and day landslide of a difference, when it comes to headshots at 70mm/105mm. At the very least, a distinction, needs to be made, between day and night and almost a tie:
e.g. "fair enough, for full body shots the difference is almost a tie it seems, or negligible somehow"... something along those lines?
Again there is no argument, in my honest opinion the headshots are day and night. But again do not trust me, just trust the screenshots as above.
I have re-watched this video on and on and taken multiple screenshot in 4k. As follows in the Google Drive link above. Honestly same conclusion. If I make myself, one makes oneself advocate of the devil the one could say at best that the 24-105mm has far less pronounced contract and micro contrast which is to me even more important, out of the box, no editing ; important to get great looking - with CLARITY - photos. And this is the same difference I have seen when trying an EF 24-70mm on my canon 6D (old and low-res but still could see a significant contrast/micro contrast) difference ! Extremely clear to me. And on this video times and times and times again, the screenshot taken of it are showing absolutely clear superior contrast on the face, eye catch light, and even more on the hat fabric/pattern. I am mesmerised when about 10 to 15 times is repeated in that video that the lenses are the same...
It might seem overly critical, it is not what I mean to be at all, but I will say the thought that genuinely came to mind, repetitions after repetitions, not just 2 or 3 or 4 times, but about 10-15 times that both lenses are practically the same. Without distinction between the day and night headshots vs. the longer distance full body shots, again almost a tie. Yet, contrast/micro-contrast differences are still obvious. But not, no distinction is made, which is mesmerising given the level of skill of the photographer. But this makes me wondering: is this video for any reason an advert for the Canon 24-105?
Romain from New Zealand, semi-pro photographer for the last 15 years, not making a living out of it but paying for trips and gear, and having done multiple paid assignments, sold printed posters, dozens of events between Europe and NZ, so not anyone to stand out, but speaking with a decent amount of experience I believe.
I really liked the last shot of her. 105mm f4 Headshot! For the money and the added reach advantage of 105mm when you need it, I think it's fantastic away from the studio, but I can really see the advantage of the 24-70 f2.8 for studio work!
So I’ve been using my dad’s 24-105 f/4 with the R5 I bought a year ago. I freaking love this lens. It is so versatile. So, I just purchased the Canon RF 24-105mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z Lens. I’ll let you know what I think. If you give a care, shoot me a note so I do not forget.
What’s the update?
@@joshuazimmer44 Not good actually. I used it for a week and returned it. There was just too much lens distortion for me. I went with an RF 70-200mm f/2.8. Love it.
Thanks for the review - I found it much more useful than the strait detailed lens reviews to have the same subject, same photo side by side. It would be great to see a similar comparison with the 24-240
Glad it was helpful! 🙏
I wish someone would do a comparison between the rf 24-70 2.8 and the new rf 28-70 2.8 non L lens
Thank you for posting! I would be curious to know how much of a difference there is between the lenses in a low light situation (e.g. a dance hall for a wedding celebration).
I purchased the R6 Mark 2 recently with the adaptor to use my EF lens (24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8, etc). I don't regret buying the adaptor but now considering an R lens for the image stabilization not in my EF 24-70. Thanks to your comparison, I'm convince that the 24-105 is the right (new) primary lens for my R6 Mark 2.
One consideration that I don't think you mentioned is the improved low light (interior) advantage of the 2.8 such as a church with low light and prohibited flash. Not an issue for me though, since I typically use my 70-200 2.8 in those circumstances.
Ordering the 24-105 4.0 today. Thanks again!
What about new 28-70 2.8 stm vs 24-105 f4?
happy amature here. Got the 24-105 with my R6 but was really never happy with it. Prefer a lighter prime when traveling and the f4 was always to dark to use indoors. Ended up selling it and getting the 24-70 instead. Much more versitile even though it's lacking the reach.
24-70 2.8 is a pro workhorse lens that whenever you need extra stop light. Think the cost effective of a 24-105 + 50 1.8 + 85 2 still less a 24-70 2.8 and the 3 lens combo would more beneficial for your photography.
I like this approach with the versatility of the 85 and 50 to pair with the 24-105. The quality of the 24-105 in the RF mount is really outstanding. Interesting though many portrait and wedding pros I know seem to like using the RF 28-70 f2 which isn’t much more than the 24-70 2.8.
I’m a beginner shooting with the R6 Mark II and the RF 85mm F2.8 currently.
I am looking at selling it and buying one of these 2 lenses but my question is if, with the blur feature in Lightroom buying the 25-70 just because of that F2.8 would truly be a game changer and justified?
I have the f/4 trio of lenses . As a hobbyist who mostly does travel and landscape they generally meet my needs. Usually if I am shooting portraits I rely on the 105 focal length for the very reasons you have explained.
Thanks Steve 😊
I bought RF 24-105 f4L, it is a good all around lens. But I immediately sold it after I tried RF 24-70 f2.8L. For me personally, it is worth the extra cost for an additional f-stop. More background blur and better low light performance are important for me .
As the video clearly shows there's no "performance" difference if you mean sharpness they are the same The background blur can be enhanced in post with a single click so for me the extra reach is far more important. I think Mark's excellent real world test shows both are excellent lenses and get what works best for you. I did and saved £1200!
@@kopite64 He wrote about low light performance. The video was shoot at daylight. There would be a significant difference in low light conditions.
If I were a professional and did a lot of portraits, etc., I'd probably go for the 24-70. However, since I'm just a hobbiest, and like to shoot a wide range of subjects, I find that the extra focal range is more important to me than the extra stop of light. Thus, I bought my R5 with the RF 24-105 F4. Later I bought the 85mm f/2 which, along with my existing EF 50 f/1.4 are great for the occassional grandchild portrait.
thank you for the video. the 105 f4 vs 70 f2.8 comparison i want to see. thnx for the effort you put in this video. greatly appreciated
Glad you liked it!
24-105 is a great travel lens as it's lighter, and has more reach. If I'm getting serious, I switch to my primes anyway.
Thanks for sharing Tom 👍
Love your videos, great feel about it. Top job.
Glad you like them 🙏
Excellent video and very useful comparisons between these two lenses. Personally, I prefer the 24-105 mm F4 because it is a great walk around lens and offers a wider range of focal lengths.
Thanks for sharing 🙏
Great video Mark. I've recently upgraded to a R6 Mii from a 7D Mii. I've got a 24-105 ef L lens. Is there a big enough difference in the rf lens 24-105 to consider?
I have the 24-105 and use the techniques I learned from your beginner course to get a great background blur. In my opinion, spending extra money on the 2.8 would not be worth it.
Thanks for sharing 👍
Great comparison Mark. thanks for sharing... What is your view on the rf24-70 f2 ??? That's a beast ... is there a marked difference between f2 and f2.8?
Not used that one Rich so can't say.
I chose the R24-105. The focal length overlaps my EF 17-35 at one end and my Diffractive Optics EF 70-300 at the other. Very pleased with it. I don’t think I’ll use the extra stop often enough of the 24-70.
Matt, Whitstable, UK.
Great comparison video and I acknowledge your findings and opinion. I have always used the EF 24-70 2.8 early version and traded up to the series ll and complement with the 70-200 2.8 ll I appreciate the extra stop as I frequently shoot in low / lower light. For almost 4 years now, I have been using EOS R-5 and have never felt the urge to upgrade my robust EF lenses to the RF lenses. Thank you and Keep up the great work 😊
Thanks Jean 🙏😊
Would love to see a comparison on benefits of the extra stop for landscape photography. I have the 24-105 4-7.1 and it did well for travel photography.
Nice and clear compare! I'm make photos most at events, indoor. So using f2.8 lenses (15-35, 24-70 and 70-200) on my R5. The extra stop is very welcome. The 24-105 is a very nice lens for outside (travel) and studio photos.
Why you edit DNG files in Lightroom and not the CR3 files?
Thanks for sharing. That's all explained here th-cam.com/video/5qiIC1D14WU/w-d-xo.html
@@theschoolofphotography Thanks!
yes, at 15:05 having seen you shoot them, extra exposure on the boots to separate the brown boots from the mud does improve it a bit.
Been on the fence about the 24-105 as my second RF lens after the 100mm RF macro. Now the decision is made. Thanks. 🙏🏻
You're welcome 😊
Thanks for sharing now I know that I don't need them probably because I'm not doing weddings or events. I do families, and single person portraits and I have 85 and 35 and or 50 so I have time to switch out lenses ❤
With the new 28-70 f/2.8 just released, I'd be interested to get your thoughts on that lens as an alternative.
For my paid work, I'm still using my EF L lenses, but as I look towards retirement, I'm selecting lenses that will suit me better for size and weight. The 24-105 I've had for 5 years now, and I'm very happy with its performance. It's sharp enough, does well for portraits at 105, and is great for landscapes. I've two other RF f4L lenses, the 70-200 which is beautifully compact, and the 10-20, which is simply astonishing.
Very good test indeed. :) Thanks for doing this.
Glad you liked it!
This was literally the most useful comparison. Thank you. 24-105 for me.
Great to hear 👍 😊
I have owned the 24-70mm f2.8 and the 24-105mm f4, albeit it Sony. I am a simple photography enthusiast and my preferred choice is the latter. The slight difference in background blur is not significant so far as I am concerned. I enjoyed the comparison - thank you.
Regarding the image at 22:20, one thing in favor of the 70mm shot is that you get more of the background in with the same framing and you have those leading lines of the fence which add some visual interest.
The hilarious gent strikes again!! 😂😂😂
Nicely done 👍🏻
22:20 I also like the look at 105mm. One thing to keep in mind though is the working distance from subject. On the 70mm, I'm guessing it's around 3.5 meters. And at 105mm you'd have to be around 5.5m. So from a good deal away to quite far away. For a shot like that, I'd rather use a 50mm, get closer, and shoot at f/1.4 or f/2 to really blur the background (if that's what I was looking for) or maybe the 85mm at 4m away at f/1.4 will really give you that magical blur.
I WAS leaning towards the 24-70, but now????? Nearly half the price AND having is capabilities has me pushed to 24-105!!! Thanks.
I got the 24-105 when I bought my R6ii, it's my go to lens, I love it.
Which lens feels better? Heavier? Balance with R5 body? Would the 24-70 work better doubling as night photography, with the extra stop?
Just curious, if you compare both lens but only use both lenses with focal length range of 24-70mm at F/4, will the result be more or less identical?
I guess for those who doesn't need the extra stop down to F2.8, then 24-105 f/4 would work well.
Thank you for the video. Question? I have the canon r5 with rf50mm f1.2. The adapted ef 70 to 200 f2.8.
I need a wider lens for videos. Would you suggest the 24-105?
Yes, absolutely
ok just bumped into this video and the channel. Shooting for 11 years but amateur as nothing. I mean amateur. And I'm jumping to the FF world. Not only I'm a complete amateur but also I'm comparatively poor to dare to have a camera not to mention a FF one. It's a dream of a lifetime and I will stick with that. Like for ever. So Yes I'm gonna do it and here we are trying to figure out from videos whether I'm gonna get a 24-70 2.8 or 24-105 4. Choosing L mount was a choice of being cheaper by A LOT. I can get away with 2790 euros and getting a body, one of these two lenses and a TTL Godox flash!!! NOT BAD! And yes both lenses are at the same price. A Sigma 24-70 mark ii and a Panasonic S 24-105. So I want to thank you for this video. You shot in bright light , using a reflector which I will never have, and at 70mm the f4 lense you just have to lower the speed to 1/250 and bump the ISO at 200. I will never get a reflector. I just move around and SHOOT. ANYTHING. You just have to connect your heart to your eye. And these figures are more than enough for me to choose the 24-70. Thanks man. I mean the situations vary so dramatically that you really can't depend on how your camera will perform in low light and speed. I'm poor remember? I'll get one lense and maybe a second later much later on. I'm not a photographer either. I'm not getting paid it's not my job. I'm nobody. An amateur. And I'm old...rushing to my 60s. So picking the right gear for day night for inside the woods or under a bridge or inside a church or a cathedral, yes I'm in Europe, is everything for me. I can't just crank the ISO up, lower the speed and hoping the camera will do it's trick. I'm not jumping to the FF to make my photos look the same like a Huawei phone. I got to be careful. I can't experiment with lenses and then write my opinion. Oh that was not so good. It's life threatening scenario man. I don't have the budget and when I will start having second thoughts about my purchase... what if...this will literally kill me man. So I'm wasting my life my sleep my everything watching reviews and videos for months and months if not years. I'm watching with my soul. And my soul is what is in stake here. So I got to be careful. 24-70 it is. And perhaps an even faster prime. One. Which one ? Time will tell. And if I want more reach well this will be the second lense I'm saving for. And it's going to be either a 70-300 variable aperture or a 70-200 4. Price and my soul will be the judge. But I'm leaning on the 70-300. It's a day time lense with this kind of reach and some low light. some. Well these are my thoughts. Thnx for the video it was enough for me. And that was my translation. Light is everything.
Great video, great comparison.
Such a great video. Very useful indeed. Thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
What about the RF 24-105 F2.8 ? then you get the best of both.
at a combined price and weigth....
@@mrsuperselenio5694 yep.. maybe its because i do a lot of video and photo as my everyday job. :)
Switching lenses all the time is a hassle and you miss stuff. The weight and price is worth it. (Im getting it as soon as possible)
The RF 24-105 and the RF 15-35
@@baekmedier I fixed that issue with a second body R5 main and R secondary. Now I keep a wide lense could be 35mm/50mm/ 24-105 f4, mostly the last one as main and on my second body 95% of the time its my 70-200mm f2.8. For video I vary a little bit depending on what I am filming or an specific shot.
Also if one camera breaks, I always have a back up, while if I got the lense, apart from the weight and money, I can't afford that thing to stop working.
@@mrsuperselenio5694 Yeah I own the R5C, R3 and two C70 video cameras for corporate interviews.
Use speedboosters on the C70s for "full frame" and ND adaptor for the R5C for "build in NDs" :) I do a lot og both photo and video.
Some projects need the low aperture wide angle like my EF24mm f1.4... some EF16-35 f 2.8 mark 2.. but also the Ef 50 f.1.4 or EF 85 F.1.2
sports I use the 70-200 mark 3 F2.8 and some the RF 100-500.. sometimes I need to bring the whole bag, and sometimes only the videocameras and one photo camera..
But In the future in my professional projects im going to switch everything to having two cameras and two lenses..
- c400 (26 MP, C-log 2, full frame RF mount)
- R1 (26 MP, C-log 2, full frame RF mount)
- RF 15-35 f. 2.8
- RF 24-105 f 2.8
RF has several disadvantages : you can add MANY functions if you use EF adaptors - adding a new control ring to your camers, adding rear filters to ALL your lenses, adding tilt shift capabilty to ALL your lenses and MANY more functions . There is NO UPSIDE to buying RF lenses
The only real argument are rear filters and they really are a big advantage, but it's also mostly for video. If I was doing video, I'd be definitely looking to snatch EF lenses over RF. Sadly not much of a benefit to me.
As for control rings, not really an argument in favor of the EF lenses, as these lenses come with control rings built into them. It's not a benefit over RF lenses since they already have it. And if I'm being honest, the actual use case for control rings is well, sketchy. The cameras (at least the FF ones and the R7 at least) already have 3 dials, so anything in regards to exposure is already covered with that, and to activate the control ring you are required to press a button. I was intending to use mine as a WB control ring, but I need to press a button to activate the ring, which kind of defeats the purpose of it since I already had a button mapped to that on the record button and can do it with 2 fingers. It's even less work than the lens control ring because to turn the ring I need to move my hand that supports the lens towards the front of it. Having it on the adapter would make it even worse. And the menu options for the ring aren't amazing either, it's not as customizable as the rest of the camera's buttons/dials.
"There is NO UPSIDE to buying RF lenses"
It might seem like that based on paper specs, but my RF 24-70 is considerably faster and more accurate in terms of focusing compared to my 3 other EF lenses (70-200 IS III, 85/1.4 L IS and 35/2 IS) which are no slouches either. It makes them feel dated. It simply has better focusing motors AND better stabilization. It's also far more quiet, it's practically dead silent. When I use the other 3 lenses, I can hear them chirp while focusing, I can hear the IS motors, I can literally feel them vibrate in my hands as I use them (especially the 70-200 and the IS on it).
I do think EF is still better value for the money (which is why I bought these, because getting everything in the RF mount was out of the question, budget-wise), but the 24-70 I got is worth every dime if you ask me, and I will definitely look to updating everything to RF in the foreseeable future. These serve me well for now.
Adding tilt shift to all my lenses was a game changer for mr, especillay for video. Best of luck with your RF journey. I'm sticking to my '2 for 1' EF choice !
Great comparison, although the people who like to split hairs (myself included) would likely choose the f2.8, Canons pricing is simply too high. Always has been but even more so now, especially for those in the US facing this trash economy. I personally am looking for a good size/form factor as well so I can travel with it. Seem like the 24-105mm is well worth it especially the used price. Thanks for the in depth review!
the 24-70 is a lot sharper and that is more important than background creaminess!
which lens would complement video better?
What a fantastic real world test thank you backed up the decision I made the extra reach the 24-105 F4 gives me for street photography is absolutely invaluable. Funnily I met a real camera snob last week who had the 2.8 and he made the comment "oh you have the kit lens" 😡 Yes I replied and saved £1200 which got me the battery grip and a flashgun. With the low light performance of this camera the reach is far more important to me than an extra stop I will be able to get the shot while you are trying to get closer to the subject or swapping lenses for your 70-200. As long as you are happy that's fine, I know I made the right choice for me thanks 😂 Really excellent no nonsense in the field test thank you Mark. As for Bokeh and background blur it can be added with a single click in post so there's that advantage of the 2.8 dealt with as well!
You're welcome 😊 🙏. And anyone that calls the 24-105 L lens a kit lens is a d*ck! 😁
@@theschoolofphotography, Canon sold A LOT of 24-105s (EOS) as kits with various cameras. They were packaged in a single box with the camera.
beautiful model ! 🤩
Between the 85, 135 and 70-200, I’m pretty much covered for all my portraiture needs so wouldn’t really know what to do with a 24-105. Although I own and use the 24-70 2.8, I prefer the look of the 35 1.4 and 50 1.2. The 16-35 2.8 takes care of my wide angle needs, so the only way I’d be able to justify a 24-105 purchase would be to have a good do-it-all travel lens for personal use. I can also see this as a good option for someone just starting out on their photography journey.
Thank you for this video ❤
You are so welcome!
So helpful! Thank you!
Thank you for the video, I really appreciate it as I'm just getting into mirrorless and was debating on whether I had to spend the extra $1,100 for the 24-70 to pair with my (new to me) D6m1. I think the 24-105 is going to be just fine....I will say however for your SPECIFIC test, I preferred the composition of the 24-70 at 70mm to the 24-105 at 105.....Seeing more of the winding path behind the model just added some depth to the photo that the tighter zoom at 105 didn't, even if that's what it took to even out the bokeh.
Awesome video
Excelent review, thank you
Our pleasure!
I noticed when you pan with 24-105, there was stuttering. Does 24-70 have same problem? I like to shoot video. I am just hesitating which lens I will buy. Thanks.
Yo! He's just "hearting" all comments, not answering any questions, lol, 👊🏾🇳🇬🇺🇸
Great review, good attention to detail. Keep them coming.
On another note, since WEX helped getting this video done (great to see that), has anyone had any experience buying USED GEAR from WEX? Im thinking of getting R6 MK II used, but a bit hesitant. But its £1k in price difference that could be used towards lenses. Any info would be appreciated.
Thanks for the info and idea, I have the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Art and the RF 24-105 f/4. I going on a party cruise to take some family photos and was on the fence about which lens to take. And after making a similar comparison between the two with my trusted mannequin bust. My results are about to same on the telephoto side.
Thanks for sharing 👍
Well done.
I have both using Canon R6 Mark II.
Lighting availability helps me decide which lens to mount (first).
I use f/4, 24-105 for outside work (mostly).
I use f/2.8. 24-70 for inside work (mostly).
Can do professional quality work with either lens.
Canon digital shooter for 20 years.
Not a pro. Retired engineer. Photography gets me out of the house.
one other point, the 105 isn't just more focal range, as 105 is a macro focal length (I shoot Nikon, and 105 is their tele macro in the range, 60 the other), so MINIMUM aperture is also a consideration, as in the 105 prime case, f 32 Vs f22 or f16 so getting wider dof, and also having f22 actually being diffraction free (as it's not the last f stop on the range), is advantageous, saving work in post, or giving extra light stopping ability (without resorting to ND's, so keeping image quality).
What camera do you use? Why not 24-105mm f/2.8?
I'm impressed by the results with the 24 105.
The 24 70 is the one I want to buy but right I'm a bit confused to be honest 😅
24 mm is not wide enough, I prefer the 14-35 F4L in a combo with the 50mm F1.8 and the 70-200 F4L. For outside portraits there’s no need to go RF - the EF 135mm F2 is a forever lens.
Brilliant Real Talk.
For those newbies wondering, the 24-105 f4 L has better IQ than 28-70 f2.8 . That extra stop and background separation isn't as dramatic as F2 or 1.8.
You are better off with 105 @f4 and also mirrorless cameras are getting better and better with iso tolerance so f4 isn't a big deal (in practical day to day use)
24-70 F/2.8 non L?
That doesn't even exist.
There is the new 28-70/2.8 non-L, and no the 24-105 isn't better than that one either.
@@Mikri90 ueah i figured, sorry my bad i thought it was a non L version. Got mixed up with 28-70 2.8 version
I do events at night in terrible light and I like my f2.8s, but if the stage is well lit the 105mm is way more convenient.
Nice review! I have the RF 24-105. I like it. The 24-70 f2.8 is a nice lens, but put it on your camera and walk around the zoo for a few hours. I would be willing to bet you may like the 24-105 a whole lot more. It is lighter. With the ISO performance of the R5 and R6, I see little problem. If I was doing a ton of indoor nightclub/band shoots, I may opt for a 24-70, but right now, I am good with my choice.
Thanks for the tips!
I think with ideal lighting I prefer the F4 lens. In a professional scenario where you need to get the shot even in less than ideal lighting condition than I'd go for the f2.8. But to be honest with the way my R6ii handles ISO I prefer the lighter weight and longer zoom of the 24-105. I think my next purchase is going to be the 70-200 f4. I love my 24-105 f4.
The DOF is only bound to the physical size of the aperture. f4 @ 105mm gives 26,25mm and the f2.8 @ 70mm gives 25mm. (Larger aperture equals a smaller DOF.
A few years ago, I drew these lens ray diagrams to determine whether the depth of field changes when the focal length doubles and the sensor dimensions double (constant FOV), but the lens diameter remains the same. And guess what?
The images turned out exactly the same. Proving that not the f-number, but the physical size of the aperture is the only variable determining DOF.
I have both of these lenses. If you don't notice a difference on the Canon R6, the 24-105/4 lens already loses sharpness on the Canon R5.
I shoot at 5.6 LOL its just enough for separation but everything is sharp One of the best comparison videos I have seen.Thank You oh so f4 24-105 deal done save LOL
I had the EF 24-70 F2.8 and when moved to the R I sold it and bough the RF 24-105 F4 L. Had it since it came out and mostly used for travel. Honestly never been happy with the edge performance and I think its time I swap it out for the F2.8 RF. I see photos from Sony and Nikon with their 24-105 and 24-120 and the photos look crips edge to edge so I dont know if its just my lens or I'm too picky. I tested between F8 and F11 and still not happy with it when shooting landscape or city photos during my travels. I was trying to keep the lens light but I think edge to edge sharpness is more important now. I shoot with the R5 and the R6Mk2. I also have the RF 70-200F4 which is much better edge to edge.
IMO, 24-105 was never a great lens (this was confirmed by professionally done tests), but it is convenient.
I agree with you...rf 24-105 better look at 105👍