Patent: Canon RF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM

Random Orbits

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 14, 2012
2,141
59
#42
I'm just trying to pick between EF 24-70/4 and 24-105/4 Mk.II. It is tough call... I like additional reach of the second one but the first one seems to be considered a sharper lens - not sure how much it is actually visible in real world situations.
I primarily use the 24-105 f/4 IS II for video, and use the 24-70 f/2.8 II for stills at the same time. I rarely use the 24-105 for stills, but I'm starting to. I like the 105 focal length better for portraits better than 70, and if 105 is good enough, then I'm not bringing a telephoto zoom. I know it's softer at the long end away from the center, but for impromptu portraits, it's more than adequate.
 

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,397
456
Canada
#43
I wonder if the RF 24-105mm f/4L IS might be perceived as sharper than its EF predecessor because of a significantly better IS implementation?
I'm fairly sure that when they shoot comparison images (in a studio or lab) for lenses, that the cameras are tripod mounted and IS is turned off, and in this case it makes no difference. For people wandering around taking their own shots (real world useage) you are quite probably right; a better IS system gives less shake and therefore, a sharper picture. Similarly, a better AF system will do the same. If both are better, you end up with a lot of happy people :)
 
Likes: YuengLinger

YuengLinger

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 20, 2012
2,095
121
Southeastern USA
#44
I primarily use the 24-105 f/4 IS II for video, and use the 24-70 f/2.8 II for stills at the same time. I rarely use the 24-105 for stills, but I'm starting to. I like the 105 focal length better for portraits better than 70, and if 105 is good enough, then I'm not bringing a telephoto zoom. I know it's softer at the long end away from the center, but for impromptu portraits, it's more than adequate.
We get caught up in gear talk so much, especially when it's about the next great thing. How many times have I read on CR that the 24-105 is a "just a kit lens"? As if it were an irrelevant lens meant for newbies... In fact, for years version-one was a workhorse among lifestyle and family portrait photographers because of its range of focal-lengths, good IQ, and IS. It was also heavily used in studio work. I know this from the great number of shots it was used for in PPA's Loan Collections and in issues of PPA and RANGEFINDER magazines, and from personal experience.

(I regret selling my version-one as part of the 5DIII kit it came with. You know, trying to milk a little extra $$$ from the sale by having original everything in the original box. On the other hand, I sold it anticipating version-two to be better! Doh!)

When many CR members dismissed the disappointing performance of version-two as unimportant because of its kit-lens status (and because it is simply futile to question the corporate wisdom of the Canon juggernaut), I realized that priorities here don't 100% align with those of working photographers.
 
Last edited:

Random Orbits

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 14, 2012
2,141
59
#45
We get caught up in gear talk so much, especially when it's about the next great thing. How many times have I read on CR that the 24-105 is a "just a kit lens"? As if it were an irrelevant lens meant for newbies... In fact, for years version-one was a workhorse among lifestyle and family portrait photographers because of its range of focal-lengths, good IQ, and IS. It was also heavily used in studio work. I know this from the great number of shots it was used for in PPA's Loan Collections and in issues of PPA and RANGEFINDER magazines, and from personal experience.

(I regret selling my version-one as part of the 5DIII kit it came with. You know, trying to milk a little extra $$$ from the sale by having original everything in the original box. On the other hand, I sold it anticipating version-two to be better! Doh!)

When many CR members dismissed the disappointing performance of version-two as unimportant because of its kit-lens status (and because it is simply futile to question the corporate wisdom of the Canon juggernaut), I realized that priorities here don't 100% align with those of working photographers.
True, which is the reason why I never thought about it as a primary mid-range zoom. At the launch price, the 24-105 II was expensive, but I got a white box for slightly more than 700, which is reasonable. I thought the II IQ was similar to the original, and that the major differences were resistance to flare (coatings) and improved IS.

I think that since all 24-105s (Sony, Canon, Nikon, Sigma) are largely comparable and that they sit below the 24-70s IQ suggests that the limitation is the focal length range and not in the flaw of a company's lens design or due to intentional crippling.

With the RF 24-105, I don't think I'd bite with a RF 24-70 f/4. I'd rather supplement it with 24-70 f/2.8, although I would like to try out the 28-70 f/2 behemoth just for giggles.
 

4fun

EOS M5
Nov 19, 2018
147
39
#46
... but the RF 24-105 images I've seen around the internet have made me think the RF 24-105 is a step up on the EF versions.
i am referring to Canon's own whitepaper that includes a detailed MTF comparison of all their current 24-105 versions: EF L, EF non L, RF. in total, RF does not have a real IQ advantage, plus and minus pretty much even out. and this is firectly from Canon themselves who have every interest to not "undersell" the RF lens ... the current 40% surcharge over EF L is in no way justified.

https://www.canonrumors.com/eosr/canon_eos_r_white_paper.pdf

page 22 ff.
 

jd7

EOS T7i
Feb 3, 2013
641
45
#47
i am referring to Canon's own whitepaper that includes a detailed MTF comparison of all their current 24-105 versions: EF L, EF non L, RF. in total, RF does not have a real IQ advantage, plus and minus pretty much even out. and this is firectly from Canon themselves who have every interest to not "undersell" the RF lens ... the current 40% surcharge over EF L is in no way justified.

https://www.canonrumors.com/eosr/canon_eos_r_white_paper.pdf

page 22 ff.
Good point! Now you say it, I remember reading that when the whitepaper first became available but I'd forgotten about it. I felt like the RF 24-105 images I've been seeing around the internet were a little sharper than EF 24-105 images and the bokeh was a step up, but I guess maybe I'm just imagining it. I still may be interested in the RF 24-105 though, because of the size/weight, but we'll see.

Looking at the whitepaper again has reminded me the MTF curves for the RF 35/1.8 IS isn't so very different from the EF 35/2 IS MTF curves either. The EF 35/2 IS is a good lens and I like its size/weight, but I sold mind after trying and then buying a Sigma 35 Art. Not sure I could go back, even though having a small, light prime for general walk around use would be nice.

EDIT - perhaps the reason I have felt RF 24-105 images look a little better than EF 24-105 images is that all of the RF 24-105 images are being taken with the R's 30 MP sensor, while many EF 24-105 images are no doubt taken with lower resolution, older, sensors (and I am viewing images on the same size screen)? Of course, there will be some EF 24-105 images taken with the 5D IV and the 5Ds/R. If I get time I will see if I can find some taken with one/some of those cameras to compare against RF 24-105 images.
 
Last edited:
Feb 25, 2015
132
39
#48
[..]
EDIT - perhaps the reason I have felt RF 24-105 images look a little better than EF 24-105 images is that all of the RF 24-105 images are being taken with the R's 30 MP sensor, while many EF 24-105 images are no doubt taken with lower resolution, older, sensors (and I am viewing images on the same size screen)? Of course, there will be some EF 24-105 images taken with the 5D IV and the 5Ds/R. If I get time I will see if I can find some taken with one/some of those cameras to compare against RF 24-105 images.
TDP to the rescue!
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
117
99
#49
I think comparing Canon's MTFs could lead to wrong conclusions.
My feeling is that Canon COULD have changed some measurement algorithms. Therefore, me too, I'm relying on Brian's TDP review. Yet, on other websites, mostly European ones, it looks like the ER is noticeably the better lens.
 
Last edited:

jd7

EOS T7i
Feb 3, 2013
641
45
#50
I think comparing Canon's MTFs could lead to wrong conclusions.
My feeling is that Canon COULD have changed some measurement algorithms. Therefore, me too, I'm relying on Brian's TDP review. Yet, on other websites, mostly European ones, it looks like the ER is noticeably the better lens.
I feel like I've seen more positive reviews than "it's no better than the EF versions" reviews (like TDP), for whatever that's worth (but it may or may not be worth anything much). I'll be keen to see if the results if Lens Rentals tests it at some point. My assumption though is if Canon had changes the way it was calculating MTF curves, they would have made a point of mentioning that.
 

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,216
113
Germany
#51
...
on other websites, mostly European ones, it looks like the ER is noticeably the better lens.
ER? EF? RF?
That typo is hard to unriddle ;)

But could you please post some links of those sites you are refering to?
I'd like to get more info on that lens. Thanks in advance.
 

4fun

EOS M5
Nov 19, 2018
147
39
#52
I think comparing Canon's MTFs could lead to wrong conclusions.
i don't think so. I think it is the most relevant and factual information we can get on the subject. With sample variation a "very good" RF could possible be noticeably better than a "poor copy" of the EF in real life. But for a general, systematic, level playing field comparison of what IQ is to be expected from different, specific lens designs, nothing beats [calculated] MTF from the same source (Canon). Except "measured MTFs" as Zeiss does. Provided it is done on a large enough number of units under ceteris paribus conditions.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
117
99
#53
ER? EF? RF?
That typo is hard to unriddle ;)

But could you please post some links of those sites you are refering to?
I'd like to get more info on that lens. Thanks in advance.
Sorry, I was tired, I meant RF !.
Thanks for noticing the error.
As to the sites, I'm afraid I read, and forget where. Stupid me, apologies...

Memory turned (partly) back: Ephotozine UK
 
Last edited:
#54
I think comparing Canon's MTFs could lead to wrong conclusions.
My feeling is that Canon COULD have changed some measurement algorithms.
Yeah—and Bryan has said exactly that in a reply to my worries about the RF 35mm here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=30033#disqus_thread

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon is re-tooling to better illustrate test results. Seems like a lot of the new lenses are just straight lines across the top of the chart.

Update: I just went back to look at that white paper again—the new lenses really do compare well with their EF counterparts. And the MTF chart on the Canon USA site is not the same as in the white paper for the EF 35 f2
 
Last edited:
Dec 6, 2018
9
16
#55
size and price, hopefully.

RF 24-105 is far from "stellar". it is "decent". 40% higher price than EF Mk. II, but IQ, size, weight not really better. IQ is behind Sony.
For "white box" or "international" maybe, but on Amazon, B&H and Adorama the price is near equal for new lenses. So appears the cost check I just looked at.

As for quality, the new RF is leaps beyond decent, otherwise you may not have seen shots yet from folks who have got the most out of the lens. I've been watching some samples on the POTN forums and a few folks are getting some exceptional shots.
 
Last edited:
Dec 6, 2018
9
16
#56
I know that was TDP's conclusion too, but the RF 24-105 images I've seen around the internet have made me think the RF 24-105 is a step up on the EF versions. It looks pretty good to me. In fact, of the four the RF lenses so far, I think this is probably the one I'd be most keen to get (given the photography I do). R + RF 24-105 would be similar size and weight to my 6DII + 24-70/4 and I'd like the extra reach, although I'd miss the macro feature. Anyway, I'm keen to hear opinions about the RF 24-105 from people who have it and have or have had an EF version.
What you noted relates to my reply back to user 4fun .... some samples I've seen from the RF 24-105 are at least a step up from the EF version ii if not more so. But the better shots I'm seeing are from people who own the lens rather than people temporarily testing the lens.
 
Likes: jd7
Jul 6, 2017
846
65
Davidson, NC
#57
When I bought the 6D2 last year I got the non-L (or Noël) version of the kit lens, mostly for cost reasons. Reviews said it was as good as the L optically, just a smaller aperture at the long end, and that maybe the STM version would have some autofocus advantage in video or something. I didn't have great expectations, based on my Rebel kit lens from long ago, but I figured it would hold me until I decided what EF lenses to buy beyond what I had. I've found it to be more than adequate as my general purpose lens, and added nice L's at 16-35mm and 100-400mm.
 

BillB

EOS 80D
May 11, 2017
856
95
#58
For "white box" or "international" maybe, but on Amazon, B&H and Adorama the price is near equal for new lenses. So appears the cost check I just looked at.

As for quality, the new RF is leaps beyond decent, otherwise you may not have seen shots yet from folks who have got the most out of the lens. I've been watching some samples on the POTN forums and a few folks are getting some exceptional shots.
Figuring in the adapter for the EF , the RF 24-105 is smaller and lighter than the latest EF version by a good bit, and it does have the RF electronics. You may be able to get a discounted EF, but the Canon price is the same for the EF and the RF. It's hard to get a street price for a lens that hasn't been on the street.
 
Likes: Random Orbits

4fun

EOS M5
Nov 19, 2018
147
39
#59
RF 24-105 is optically not better than EF Mk. II, but 40% more expensive. RF is optically slightly behind Sony 24-105. No amount of fuzzy logic will change that. facts are facts.