Review: Canon RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
1,004
206
Calm down.
Thanks, I was already calm.

Canon is offering a new choice for budget minded customers here.
I doubt there's a market there, but time will tell.

No offense to you, but reading some responses on this forum to the newer approaches Canon takes is quite concerning. The "go big or go home" attitude of some folks doesn't help anybody.
Someone who bought a full frame camera over EOS-M or smartphone is going big.

The market isn't just about pros.
I know, I'm not a pro.
 

fingerstein

EOS M50
Sep 25, 2016
25
4
I had a lot of issues with C100 mk II when I moved from interior to exterior and I had to change very fast the ND filter related to an open aperture/shallow DOF, because I had only 4 stops left (f4, f5.6, f8, f11)... as everything else is softening the image and is unusable. But going fron f7.1 to f40... is insane if you look at the loss of image quality. For video, I would find it nicer to have a more extended usable f stops whatever the focus range is (as Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM). I still wonder why would someone buy this lens and not the Canon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM or Canon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.
T
his lens is for beginners. For those who know nothing about cameras.
 

Kit.

EOR R
Apr 25, 2011
1,855
1,182
That's not true. The 'Focus'-setting is exactly the same as the 'MF' setting on other lenses. Use the ring to manually control focus.
Are you sure that it fully disables autofocus and not just allows manual focus override?

Can you use it do disable autofocus to keep the camera prefocused or do you need to use camera menu settings for that?
 

BurningPlatform

EOS 80D
Mar 4, 2014
103
47
I had a lot of issues with C100 mk II when I moved from interior to exterior and I had to change very fast the ND filter related to an open aperture/shallow DOF, because I had only 4 stops left (f4, f5.6, f8, f11)... as everything else is softening the image and is unusable. But going fron f7.1 to f40... is insane if you look at the loss of image quality. For video, I would find it nicer to have a more extended usable f stops whatever the focus range is (as Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM). I still wonder why would someone buy this lens and not the Canon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM or Canon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.
T
his lens is for beginners. For those who know nothing about cameras.
Well, I think people tend to buy full frame lenses for full frame cameras. Although, if you only consider 4k video with EOS R, those lenses you suggest could make sense. For full frame you also encounter diffraction limits later. Super35 at 5.6 is quite near full frame @ 7.1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fingerstein

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
252
110
Well if you are targeting m4/3 buyers and trying to get them into an RP instead I guess it makes sense. RF goes from the sublime to the ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Antono Refa

yeahright

EOS T7i
Aug 28, 2014
83
49
Are you sure that it fully disables autofocus and not just allows manual focus override?

Can you use it do disable autofocus to keep the camera prefocused or do you need to use camera menu settings for that?
You are right, I was wrong. Twice, even: In Focus-mode it's FTM autofocus override by default, which of course has been present on higher-end EF lenses also.
It's described here, for the 24-240.
So it's slightly more cumbersome to switch to full manual, because you also have to set it in a camera menu.
 

twoheadedboy

EOS R Fanboi
Jan 3, 2018
96
136
Kenosha, WI
The whole point is that so called correction here is destructive. Image quality suffers in result considerably. Some folks will be happy with such a toll / penalty. and other would not.
Personally, I would not recommend this product to anyone. It is a rubbish in my opinion.
Shooting in JPG is "destructive" too. Most of the shooters using this lens are going to do that and not bother with raw.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

twoheadedboy

EOS R Fanboi
Jan 3, 2018
96
136
Kenosha, WI
Those who want cheap, small, light, slow camera, and care only for the corrected jpeg, can use a smartphone.

Roger Cicala reports correcting the EF 24-105mm f/4L loses 15% resolution in the corners. The new lenses lose even more. Why not buy an older DSLR & lenses from ebay? I knew a wedding photographer who made a living with such lenses as an EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L from ebay.
At what print size are you going to see that difference, and why would you be shooting THIS lens to make such a print? This type of corner resolution issue just does not matter for snapshooters at web resolutions or 8x10's at the largest as normal people print. Guaranteed that "destroyed" corner on an RP still is vastly superior to an iPhone 11 or Pixel 4.

Also not sure what your link is supposed to be, but it goes to this same thread, and says nothing about the f/4. I also don't see anything in your profile (despite nearly 3,000 posts here) showing the HQ/high resolution work that would demonstrate this issue, and judging by your tagline, you don't even shoot RF, so seems like you're just trolling at this point.
 
Last edited:

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,080
995
Shooting in JPG is "destructive" too. Most of the shooters using this lens are going to do that and not bother with raw.
Obviously destructive shooting JPGs or not. And you are correct: Many won’t bother or notice the trickery. That’s a BS though.
 

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
91
16
I don't understand why, if the 24 - 240 is f/6.3 at the long end, they had to make the 24-105 f/7.1 at 105. I think f/6.3 would have been more palatable on the 24-105 and f/7.1 on the 240.

From the specs of the R6 it sounds like it will be pretty expensive, more than either the RP or R, so I don't see R6 buyers wanting a cheap 24-105 f/7.1. Seems like maybe this would be a better match for the RP. Granted, f/7.1 on full frame is still shallower depth of field and more light than f/5.6 on crop, and light weight is nice. But the RP even with the 24-105 L f/4 is lighter than an 80D with 15-85 f/3.5 - 5.6. That is actually what finally got me to get a full-frame camera - I finally have a general purpose L lens with constant f/4 on full frame, and it weighs less than my 80D and 15-85 combo.

As for the casual shooter, how many of them care about going to full frame instead of crop?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM

Chaitanya

EOS 6D MK II
Jun 27, 2013
1,262
365
34
Pune
I think that's what I wrote. Control, or manual focus override. Sure, if it is set in the menu toF only there's nothing to override.

I don't think it is stupid. I like using MF, but there's a lot of people that probably are happy with the degree of 'manual' offered by tapping on the touchscreen to focus. For special cases like focussing on stars at night or the like, there's still the menu.

As somebody else already pointed out, you can basically get this lens for free with certain RP bundles right now. Can't complain about that.
In order to use the macro mode on this lens users will have to enter MF mode and thats not a straightforward process as it could have been. Otherwise its a good value for money lens which might get a following among herpers especially a decent wide angle macro.
 

Eclipsed

EOS T7i
Apr 30, 2020
76
66
I don't think that it's a fair comparison to say that the 24-105 and 24-240 distortion/vignetting issues are the same or even similar. The 24-240 flat does not project an image circle that covers the sensor at wider angles. It requires the image corrections to be turned on in order to do its job. The 24-105 has some pretty severe problems, but it is still delivering a full image. I think the 24-105 non-L is optically challenged, but not like the 24-240.
Who cares? Any lens correcting barrel distortion is discarding some corner pixels. Who cares whether those pixels were illuminated or not?
 

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
1,004
206
At what print size are you going to see that difference, and why would you be shooting THIS lens to make such a print? This type of corner resolution issue just does not matter for snapshooters at web resolutions or 8x10's at the largest as normal people print.
Sanpshooters who print 8x10 can buy an EOS-M, or any decade old rebel on ebay. Saying 'oh, he bought an overkill camera, no problem in mounting a cheap under performing lens' isn't much of an argument.

I also don't see anything in your profile (despite nearly 3,000 posts here) showing the HQ/high resolution work that would demonstrate this issue, and judging by your tagline, you don't even shoot RF, so seems like you're just trolling at this point.
Nothing like good old ad hominem. I may talk about RF lenses only after proof of shooting with RF lenses (is this an RF mount issue, or image quality issue?), and resolution only after proof of shooting high resolution.

Feel free to skip my posts, snobby troll.
 

Joules

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 16, 2017
834
882
Hamburg, Germany
Sanpshooters who print 8x10 can buy an EOS-M, or any decade old rebel on ebay.
I think Canon is working to shape the RF ecosystem so that it can effectively replace EF and EF-S, while avoiding confusion caused by a crop exclusive line of lenses.

This lens is a kit lens option for newcomers into the system. Keep in mind that the RP is already extremely well priced. Once the sales go up and they release a model without EVF, they may go even lower.

I'm not sure while you suggest using a smartphone, or an M or a Rebel is the same as entering the RF system with a cheap lens. With the former options, you sacrifice on ergonomics and can't have access to the newest FF lenses in the future. This on the other hand lowers the barrier to entry for the FF ecosystem. As I said before, people have to start of somewhere. The market is changing. Eventually, that somewhere may not be Rebel SLRs anymore.
 

Joules

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 16, 2017
834
882
Hamburg, Germany
In order to use the macro mode on this lens users will have to enter MF mode and thats not a straightforward process as it could have been. Otherwise its a good value for money lens which might get a following among herpers especially a decent wide angle macro.
Somebody suggested the switch actually is for MF once it is set to focus. So that the lens basically doesn't have AF override, but the control ring feature instead. If that is correct, I see absolutely nothing wrong here. AF override is something I only use very rarely and I don't think with the DOF of this lens it is a necessity.
 

FamilyGuy

EOS 80D
Feb 5, 2020
107
142
Regarding auto to manual focus - for the 24-240, I just made it the first choice in my custom menu. Easy to find. I know it's not as easy as a straight override lens switch, but I'm not planning on paying more than $2,000 for a lens anytime soon either.
 

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
1,004
206
I think Canon is working to shape the RF ecosystem so that it can effectively replace EF and EF-S, while avoiding confusion caused by a crop exclusive line of lenses.

This lens is a kit lens option for newcomers into the system. Keep in mind that the RP is already extremely well priced. Once the sales go up and they release a model without EVF, they may go even lower.

I'm not sure while you suggest using a smartphone, or an M or a Rebel is the same as entering the RF system with a cheap lens. With the former options, you sacrifice on ergonomics and can't have access to the newest FF lenses in the future. This on the other hand lowers the barrier to entry for the FF ecosystem. As I said before, people have to start of somewhere. The market is changing. Eventually, that somewhere may not be Rebel SLRs anymore.
I see your point, but it seems like you're expecting Canon to kill the EOS-M line, which sounds problematic, PR wise.
 

twoheadedboy

EOS R Fanboi
Jan 3, 2018
96
136
Kenosha, WI
Who cares? Any lens correcting barrel distortion is discarding some corner pixels. Who cares whether those pixels were illuminated or not?
If you read the review, which it seems you didn't, the corrected "24mm" is truly "24mm", meaning the uncorrected pic is actually wider than 24mm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shawn

twoheadedboy

EOS R Fanboi
Jan 3, 2018
96
136
Kenosha, WI
Sanpshooters who print 8x10 can buy an EOS-M, or any decade old rebel on ebay. Saying 'oh, he bought an overkill camera, no problem in mounting a cheap under performing lens' isn't much of an argument.



Nothing like good old ad hominem. I may talk about RF lenses only after proof of shooting with RF lenses (is this an RF mount issue, or image quality issue?), and resolution only after proof of shooting high resolution.

Feel free to skip my posts, snobby troll.
It's not an ad hominem - I said the issue you raised 1. has no qualitative impact for the target market/the way they shoot, and 2. you have not demonstrated anything to the contrary, whether considering explicitly in this thread, or in any other post you have made. Considering the matter at hand is a particular lens on a particular mount and what it looks like, and your opinion is contrary to that of reviews/etc., then it is not unreasonable to expect you to provide actual evidence that can be independently scrutinized in support of your claim.
 

Joules

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 16, 2017
834
882
Hamburg, Germany
I see your point, but it seems like you're expecting Canon to kill the EOS-M line, which sounds problematic,
I don't think they'll kill it off. But so far they have really restricted themselves to the tiniest of lenses for that system. They all have the same outer diameter. If they keep that up, there's only so much room to evolve for the M system. No fast zooms, no fast Tele lenses. No compatibility with the RF system and compromised ergonomics with most adapted EF lenses.

To me, that system currently looks like a world of its own. It is meant exclusively for people who value size and weight.

RF meanwhile has the potential to become what EF and EF-S currently are: A really diverse system where you can start with moderate lenses and a small body and upgrade to more expensive lenses and bodies as your skills grow and you find out which aspects of the hobby (or profession) are worth the investment.

But I may be completely wrong here. There was a rumor a while back that the future of EF-M was going to be addressed this year. And that a higher end M was coming. I have a hard time believing that it will be a 7D replacement. But some think that. Hopefully Canon will fill us in on the bigger picture rather sooner than later.