Need help, buying Cannon EOS R: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM v. RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

VICYASA

I'm New Here
Dec 15, 2019
21
5
Here's my profile: beginner photographer, getting into Cannon's mirrorless EOS R, but I want my first lens to either be:
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM (I know, older but great for wide shots etc., and yes, know I need the adapter)
or
Get the EOS R with the kit lens: RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

I want to shoot around NYC, portraits, travel, food, scenery, landscapes etc.

EVENTUALLY, I'm going to save up for RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Lens.

So, should I get the EF 16-35mm f/4L with EOS body? Or EOS body with kit lens RF 24-105mm f/4L IS?
It'll be pretty much the same price, but since ultimately I'll get the 70-200, should I be fine with 15-35 EF for walking around photography?

Plus, the EF 16-35 will still take stunning shots with EOS R and mount, correct?

Would love opinions etc

Thanks in advance, Happy Holidays!!!
 

cayenne

EOR R
Mar 28, 2012
2,078
200
I'd say go with the RF 24-105mm f/4L IS.

I got my 5D3 back when it came out and the 24-105 that came out with it was an excellent beginner lens for me....and worked for a LONG time.

I have since bought much faster and more $$ lenses, but I still use it occasionally for videos I do, etc. It is a great general purpose lens to start with IMHO.

Get that, and save your $$...and on subsequent lenses, get the faster ones as you can.

These days, unless specialty lens, I'm not buying anything slower than 2.8.....

And someone correct me if I"m wrong, but didn't the RF mount 24-105 get a bit of a performance boost over the EF version?


Anyway, that's my $0.02,

cayenne
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

VICYASA

I'm New Here
Dec 15, 2019
21
5
I'd say go with the RF 24-105mm f/4L IS.

I got my 5D3 back when it came out and the 24-105 that came out with it was an excellent beginner lens for me....and worked for a LONG time.

I have since bought much faster and more $$ lenses, but I still use it occasionally for videos I do, etc. It is a great general purpose lens to start with IMHO.

Get that, and save your $$...and on subsequent lenses, get the faster ones as you can.

These days, unless specialty lens, I'm not buying anything slower than 2.8.....

And someone correct me if I"m wrong, but didn't the RF mount 24-105 get a bit of a performance boost over the EF version?


Anyway, that's my $0.02,

cayenne
Thanks for prompt reply. Anyone else with thoughts on this?

Quick question, the 24-105 you used for a while... did you shoot landscape, portraits etc with it? Is the RF version a significant improvement?

Cheers~!
 

cayenne

EOR R
Mar 28, 2012
2,078
200
Thanks for prompt reply. Anyone else with thoughts on this?

Quick question, the 24-105 you used for a while... did you shoot landscape, portraits etc with it? Is the RF version a significant improvement?

Cheers~!
I shot most everything...since it was my first lens. It came with my EF camera then as a kit lens, and I also at the time bought the 84mm 1.8 lens which I read at the time was a good bang for the buck lens and it wasn't bad... a bit of chromatic aberration, but that can be readily cleaned up on post.

Anyway, please let us know what you end up going for!!

Happy Shooting!!

cayenne
 

Krob78

When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
Aug 8, 2012
1,455
9
The Florida Peninsula
Both are great lenses. I have owned the EF 24-105mm, and it was a workhorse, loved it on my 7d and 5d3 and 5d4. Used it for a myriad of images. I bought an EF 16-35 f/4 and hardly ever used the EF 24-105 again. I use it for street, architectural, real estate and landscape, but not much for portraits, unless a larger party type portrait image.

I did opt to get the RF24-105mm with my EOS R and it the quality of that and the resulting images were excellent and definitely a step up, at least with my copy, over the EF 24-105mm. I found it so exceptional, that I'm now working on replacing my EF lenses with RF mount lenses.

Yes, I know it sounds silly, but I saw such a difference I really want to "upgrade" my lenses for the EOS R, rather than use the adapter with the adjusting ring. The images are still very good with the EF lenses on the EOS R, but I feel like the RF lenses are better...

Anyway, they are two different lenses... Which one would you use more? Only you can know that, but the 24-105mm is a great walk around. Good starter lens and a workhorse...

Cheers!
 

PCM-madison

EOS 80D
Dec 9, 2013
115
45
I have an RP with the RF 24-105 f4. It is a great combination, and I personally use the 36-105mm end of the range frequently for travel and landscape photos. I do have the EF 16-35mm F4 lens also. I only bring it on trips when I know I will need the wide angle and as part of a multi-lens kit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
684
707
I own both.
The 24-105 is a very good lens, with some CA (not extreme, easily corrected in LR), and covers a very useful range.
On the other hand,, the 16-35 is optically (and subjectively !) a bit better, and a better choice IF !!! you plan to buy a 24-70 later on.
In any case, it comes down to a choice between versatility and a very wide angle. I use both of them, separately, the 16-35 with heavy gear (tele-zoom, TSE etc...) , and the 24-105 when visiting cities with a 70-200.
Both are really good, the choice isn't easy...:unsure:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VICYASA

VICYASA

I'm New Here
Dec 15, 2019
21
5
I own both.
The 24-105 is a very good lens, with some CA (not extreme, easily corrected in LR), and covers a very useful range.
On the other hand,, the 16-35 is optically (and subjectively !) a bit better, and a better choice IF !!! you plan to buy a 24-70 later on.
In any case, it comes down to a choice between versatility and a very wide angle. I use both of them, separately, the 16-35 with heavy gear (tele-zoom, TSE etc...) , and the 24-105 when visiting cities with a 70-200.
Both are really good, the choice isn't easy...:unsure:
EVENTUALLY, I'm going to save up for RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Lens. Which is why I'm thinking just start with the 16-35. Smart? Good combo to have?
 

cayenne

EOR R
Mar 28, 2012
2,078
200
If you REALLY want wide angle...I would highly recommend the 11-24 f/4 (one of the few lenses slower than 2.8 I own).....

LOL...just joking.

It's a beast, and fun....but $$$$$$$.

There's lots of others you'll likely want before that big boy....

Anxious to hear what you get!!

C
 

Photorex

EOS RP
Nov 19, 2016
263
48
Here's my profile: beginner photographer, getting into Cannon's mirrorless EOS R, but I want my first lens to either be:
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM (I know, older but great for wide shots etc., and yes, know I need the adapter)
or
Get the EOS R with the kit lens: RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

I want to shoot around NYC, portraits, travel, food, scenery, landscapes etc.

EVENTUALLY, I'm going to save up for RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Lens.

So, should I get the EF 16-35mm f/4L with EOS body? Or EOS body with kit lens RF 24-105mm f/4L IS?
It'll be pretty much the same price, but since ultimately I'll get the 70-200, should I be fine with 15-35 EF for walking around photography?

Plus, the EF 16-35 will still take stunning shots with EOS R and mount, correct?

Would love opinions etc

Thanks in advance, Happy Holidays!!!
I don't think you will need necessarily the faster 15-35 any time soon for the purposes you listed. Only portaiture work would win with faster lense if Bokeh matters to you. But than the 15-35 is not a classic Portrait lens at all (maybe full body portraits). When you start with the 24-105 f/4 and the 16-35 f/4 this will perfectly mtach your needs.
Maybe later there will also be a f/4 ultrawide zoom in the RF lineup.
For a really great price/value ratio I can recommend the Tamron 17-35 F/2.8-4. You can save a lot of many compared to the Canon counterpart. It's well worth to llok for this lens.

Frank
 

jd7

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 3, 2013
782
151
Here's my profile: beginner photographer, getting into Cannon's mirrorless EOS R, but I want my first lens to either be:
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM (I know, older but great for wide shots etc., and yes, know I need the adapter)
or
Get the EOS R with the kit lens: RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

I want to shoot around NYC, portraits, travel, food, scenery, landscapes etc.

EVENTUALLY, I'm going to save up for RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Lens.

So, should I get the EF 16-35mm f/4L with EOS body? Or EOS body with kit lens RF 24-105mm f/4L IS?
It'll be pretty much the same price, but since ultimately I'll get the 70-200, should I be fine with 15-35 EF for walking around photography?

Plus, the EF 16-35 will still take stunning shots with EOS R and mount, correct?

Would love opinions etc

Thanks in advance, Happy Holidays!!!
Both lenses you are considering are good lenses (as someone else has already said), and both lenses cover 24-35mm, so the question is would you rather also have 16-24 or 35-105 available to you? Which you would prefer is entirely up to you and what sort of images you want to make and what situations you will be shooting in. As much as it is nice to know other people's opinion (and I get that), in the end it really is a personal decision for you.

For my own part, I would take the 24-105 without hesitation if I was only going to have one lens - and in fact, even if it wasn't my only lens, a 24-70 or 25-105 is something I would want in my kit before an ultra-wide angle. Ultra-wide angle lenses are fantastic in the right situation, but I feel like they only work in a pretty limited range of situations. Others may disagree, but that's my take. So, for me, I am sure I would get a lot more use out of the 35-105 range than out of the 16-24 range. (And don't forget in some siutations you can shoot a panorama as an alternative to an ultra-wide angle shot.)

Also, as much as I like environmental portraits so do use wide angle lenses (especially a 35 1.4) for "people photos", I think having nothing longer than 35 would be very limiting for your portraiture. I know you are talking about getting the 70-200 at some point, which would addresss that, but in the meantime if you only have 16-35, I think it will be quite limiting for any portaiture you want do do.

Good luck with your decision, and let us know what you decide!
 
Last edited:

IcyBergs

I have a Sony...TV
May 31, 2016
53
109
Here's my profile: beginner photographer, getting into Cannon's mirrorless EOS R, but I want my first lens to either be:
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM (I know, older but great for wide shots etc., and yes, know I need the adapter)
or
Get the EOS R with the kit lens: RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

I want to shoot around NYC, portraits, travel, food, scenery, landscapes etc.

EVENTUALLY, I'm going to save up for RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Lens.

So, should I get the EF 16-35mm f/4L with EOS body? Or EOS body with kit lens RF 24-105mm f/4L IS?
It'll be pretty much the same price, but since ultimately I'll get the 70-200, should I be fine with 15-35 EF for walking around photography?

Plus, the EF 16-35 will still take stunning shots with EOS R and mount, correct?

Would love opinions etc

Thanks in advance, Happy Holidays!!!
If you have been shooting on another system or with crop, how often do you use the 16-23mm (or equivalent) focal length range already.

If a strong majority of your shots are taken in that range go ahead and get the 16-35 f4.

If not....

24mm on a FF sensor is wide enough for most wide shooting scenarios...especially outdoors when you have the luxury of stepping back. Unless you are planning to shoot architectural or real estate stuff - which wasn't on your list of scenarios. You will, however, find it difficult to shoot traditional portraits with a 35mm limitation on the long end, unless all you want to shoot is environmental portraits.

Based on the type of shooting you described the 24-105mm will allow you to do them all. In my opinion that's the way to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee and jd7

jtf

I'm New Here
Mar 22, 2019
19
16
When I bought the R earlier this year I picked it up as a kit with the RF 24-105 even though I already had the EF version. I love that focal length for an all in one lens, capable of handling an assortment of photo situations, much like you've described for your plans.

I have the EF 16-35 f4 and it is a great lens but it's really more for the wide angle on a full frame like the R, and there will be situations where you will wish you could get closer but physically can't. I say this because I'm born, raised, lived and worked in NYC for most of my life and have been taking photos in my hometown since the 70's. I'm retired now but live just north of the City. I have never felt the need to use a lens as wide as a 16mm in the city. The 24-105 is wide enough for interior and architecture shots, the 105 end is good for shooting across the street or straight down an avenue.

On a side note now that I'm older, I often just use the M5 with the 22mm pancake and the 32mm ef-m lenses if I'm just walking around NYC. But I do use the R if I'm going to take pics at the Bronx Zoo or NY Botanical Gardens.

Lastly, wife bought me the RF 70-200 for Christmas but let me open it early. You're going to love it.

Enjoy NYC
 

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
480
342
If your interest is the R I would NOT buy an EF mount body. It seems like you are considering this or perhaps I misunderstood your question.