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

[twoheadedboy]

Obviously destructive shooting JPGs or not. And you are correct: Many won’t bother or notice the trickery. That’s a BS though.

It's not BS when there is no qualitative difference. Pixel peepers and those printing humongous gallery-sized prints and people submitting to Arizona Highways will buy a different lens and shoot in a different file format to get unadulterated quality, and pay the penalty in terms of price, weight, and file size to get it. Snapshooters will buy this cheaper and lighter lens and shoot in JPG and not realize that their lens is actually shooting a very distorted 23mm (or whatever) which is then corrected and becomes 24mm. Their friends and family and social medial won't realize it, either. And if you told them they wouldn't care.

 

[degos]

Their friends and family and social medial won't realize it, either. And if you told them they wouldn't care.

Yet Tamron can produce decent amateur-budget optics, without this in-camera correction that Canon has started using for cheapo lenses on the 'miraculous' RF mount.

Stop making excuses for Canon's shoddy output. I'd hoped this sort of junk has been consigned to history like the crappy EF 80-200s and 35-80s. But it seems that Canon just can't stop treating the low-end customers as dumb schmucks who won't know better... But these days, they will.

 

[twoheadedboy]

Yet Tamron can produce decent amateur-budget optics, without this in-camera correction that Canon has started using for cheapo lenses on the 'miraculous' RF mount.

Stop making excuses for Canon's shoddy output. I'd hoped this sort of junk has been consigned to history like the crappy EF 80-200s and 35-80s. But it seems that Canon just can't stop treating the low-end customers as dumb schmucks who won't know better... But these days, they will.

Again, you have failed to demonstrate how anyone is being negatively impacted, let alone bilked.

If I buy 55,000 mile-rated tires for my car instead of 65,000 mile-rated tires, am I buying shoddy crap? What about a copier that has a duty cycle of 300 pages per month instead of 3,000? What about a pair of microphones only matched to within 1 dB instead of 0.25 dB? All of these are "worse" products which may have not qualitative impact on the work product produced depending on the application. Certain people will need the better products, and pay for them - same as here. And that Tamron lens is probably fine, but the user will either need an adapter for RF, or use a bigger full frame non-mirrorless camera, or switch to APS-C which has its own challenges, and the lack of resale value for 3rd party lenses compared to 1st party needs to be considered.

 

[Steve Dmark2]

Dude, this only a new lens, stop hating each other.

Plp gonna buy this lens, stop wining about how bad it is for you, if you can afford other options.
Better be proud of your L-Glass

Cheers

 

[SteveC]

Obviously destructive shooting JPGs or not. And you are correct: Many won’t bother or notice the trickery. That’s a BS though.

The point is the raw file will be unusable as-is and MUST be corrected.

Sure someone who shoots jpg (without raw) is being destructive, but in this case you're effectively FORCED to do so.

 

[twoheadedboy]

The point is the raw file will be unusable as-is and MUST be corrected.

Sure someone who shoots jpg (without raw) is being destructive, but in this case you're effectively FORCED to do so.

No one's forced to do anything. You can shoot a different lens without this caveat. If Canon is wrong about the marketability of this design, sales will be dismal and you'll never see them try it again.

 

[SteveC]

No one's forced to do anything. You can shoot a different lens without this caveat. If Canon is wrong about the marketability of this design, sales will be dismal and you'll never see them try it again.

Well, yeah, I meant "If using this lens" of course (either this 24-105 or the 24-240).

 

[Czardoom]

Oh, how the baloney flows when the high and mighty photographers and gear-heads on this forum get a chance to slam Canon.

Canon produces a lens that is much lighter and smaller. It is an alternative to a lens that they have already released with the same focal lengths. People on here react as if this new lens is the only RF option for a 24-105mm lens. If you are not looking for a cheaper, lighter lens that obviously doesn't perform to "L" standards, don't buy it. You have the high-level option.

Mirrorless lenses that could not otherwise be made with the same size, weight, and cost, are being made with in-camera distortion correction. People react as if this a crime. Other companies are doing it - and in some cases, even pro level lenses are made this way. The correction is automatic. Unless you are going out of your way to see the uncorrected version, you will never have to deal with it. Never. Again, you have the choice to not buy this type of lens. As I mentioned, earlier, Olympus' 12-100mm M.Zuiko lens is made with auto-correction. Check out some reviews and you won't even see a mention of it in most reviews. A few review do mention it - almost in passing. It is not an issue - unless, of course, it happens to be Canon and you are a high and mighty Canon forum warrior. If you actually take photos with the lens - as one member here has reported, -the lens seems to be a good value for the cost. Needless to say, those complaining the most will never have had any intention of buying the lens. What they want is a lens that performs equally to the RF 24-105mm f/4 and costs half as much. How dare Canon for not giving people that lens!

Only beginners will buy the lens! Well, I just bought one. Have sold photos over the years, but not a pro. But not a beginner. In fact, have over 40 years experience. And experience tells me that unless you are a pixel peeper, you won't see much difference between lenses. My best selling photo was shot using a crop camera and the 18-55 kit lens. And guess what, you can't see any difference between an 8 x 10 print using that camera and lens than there is with shots taken with my 6D and "L" EF 24-105mm lens. That type of talk is blasphemy on a forum where unless you shoot FF, with "L" lenses, and a camera with at least 30mkp (soon to be 45mp) you are a beginner, or ignorant.

This is an inexpensive lens, with an emphasis on being smaller and lighter. Based on comments from those interested in mirrorless cameras, some folks (perhaps many) are looking for lighter and smaller lenses as an alternative. Why is that beyond the understanding of people on his forum?

 

[Skux]

Yeah no one is buying a $2500 camera to use this failure of a lens. Anyone who cares will get a used EF 24-105mm f4L, and those who don't aren't buying the R6 with its kit lens.

Apart from the 35mm f1.8, Canon's non-L RF glass has been painfully disappointing.

 

[twoheadedboy]

Yeah no one is buying a $2500 camera to use this failure of a lens. Anyone who cares will get a used EF 24-105mm f4L, and those who don't aren't buying this camera.

Apart from the 35mm f1.8, Canon's non-L RF glass has been painfully disappointing.

Good thing the RP isn't, and has never been, $2500.

 

[stevelee]

If I had to make the choice, I'd take the RF 24-105mm f/4 also. Great lens. On the other hand, I can fully remember when I bought my XSi years ago and how I thought spending $300 on a lens was very expensive. It does not surprise me that this lens doesn't get a warm reception here. However, when I look at buyer ratings at Adorama or Amazon for much maligned lenses on this forum, I see a lot of happy buyers. Canon will sell a lot of these and those folks will be happy. They aren't pixel peeping their corners or fretting about uncorrected distortion like many of us do. They generally don't care about a manual/auto switch either. They would probably think we are all crazy.

I think my first DSLR was an XSi, or something in that same line. I took some good pictures with it and its kit lens, but mainly it taught me that I wanted a better camera. It was very noisy at low ISO, and that was my main problem with it. It also came with a $100 75-300mm lens that was pretty bad until stopped down to f/11.

So maybe this lens for some folks will be all they want or need. For others, it will be a starter lens that helps them realize they want something better. That can help lower resistance to spending more money. After my experience with the 75-300mm, I could see spending almost $2,000 on the 100-400mmL II.

 

[stevelee]

The point is the raw file will be unusable as-is and MUST be corrected.

Sure someone who shoots jpg (without raw) is being destructive, but in this case you're effectively FORCED to do so.

I’m unaware of any Raw files that are usable “as is.”

 

[Skux]

Good thing the RP isn't, and has never been, $2500.

I mean the R6 kit.

 

[SecureGSM]

It's not BS when there is no qualitative difference. Pixel peepers and those printing humongous gallery-sized prints and people submitting to Arizona Highways will buy a different lens and shoot in a different file format to get unadulterated quality, and pay the penalty in terms of price, weight, and file size to get it. Snapshooters will buy this cheaper and lighter lens and shoot in JPG and not realize that their lens is actually shooting a very distorted 23mm (or whatever) which is then corrected and becomes 24mm. Their friends and family and social medial won't realize it, either. And if you told them they wouldn't care.

Yeah, not sure what are you arguing about here. Obviously, 90% of users won’t notice however my point being:
Canon forced in camera distortion correction for the lens to hide the issues.
Nowhere in the documentation or marketing material being mentioned that distortions being forcibly corrected. “A high image quality” being claimed by Canon. An Another word for this BS is:
Product misrepresentation. There are three types of misrepresentations exist.

innocent misrepresentation is out of question
Therefore there are two types left to choose from:
Fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation

nice and simple.

 

[SteveC]

I’m unaware of any Raw files that are usable “as is.”

Yes, I was unclear. All RAW files need, at the very least some sort of translation of the data into colors. If that's ALL you have to do, then that's what I meant by a "usuable as is" RAW file. These lenses require that you ALSO do a geometric transformation of the image to make it look as it should. That means interpolations, etc., and some (more) detail will be lost.

In fact the 24-240's distortion is so severe at 24mm that what should be the corners of the image are drawn towards the center enough that the camera image doesn't even cover the entire sensor. Fortunately the field of view DOES cover the sensor even if the projected image of it does not.

On another note:

Since some here seem to imagine the critics of this lens are elitist types who think it's worthless...I will stand up and say I do believe SOME people will find value in it, maybe even a LOT of people. I just won't be one of them, and I give my reasons here. But please don't mistake my saying it's not for me for me allegedly claiming it's not for anyone.

 

[SecureGSM]

The point is the raw file will be unusable as-is and MUST be corrected.

Sure someone who shoots jpg (without raw) is being destructive, but in this case you're effectively FORCED to do so.

Yup... and I am arguing that but not letting clients know, Canon have misrepresented the product.
negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation.

 

[SteveC]

Yup... and I am arguing that but not letting clients know, Canon have misrepresented the product.
negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation.

Given what I know, I tend to agree--it's weasely at the very least. Unless someone can find where Canon owns up to what they're doing.

I suppose at some point I should take a photo of a grid with my Tammy 18-400 to see how bad its distortion is, to see if it's actually better than the central part of the 24-240 grids (I have to do that because the Tammy is for APS-C). If it turns out to be better then I will wonder why Canon's 10X zoom distorts worse than tammy's 22+X zoom

 

[SecureGSM]

I can tell you what: with what we are seeing here we have entered an “unchartered territory”, a brave new world of in camera correction. With DLO you can switch it off. Right? So you have options. With this optical marvel of the world it is all swept under the carpet and kept mum at it. and that’s what I call BS.

 

[JustUs7]

Given what I know, I tend to agree--it's weasely at the very least. Unless someone can find where Canon owns up to what they're doing.

I suppose at some point I should take a photo of a grid with my Tammy 18-400 to see how bad its distortion is, to see if it's actually better than the central part of the 24-240 grids (I have to do that because the Tammy is for APS-C). If it turns out to be better then I will wonder why Canon's 10X zoom distorts worse than tammy's 22+X zoom

Tamron 18-400 mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD review - Distortion - LensTip.com

Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.

www.lenstip.com

Done here.

 

[shawn]

Canon knows what they're doing. They're not pretending that people who buy the L version are gonna buy this lens so stop acting like this is an affront to your sensibilities when it was never meant for you. This is a lens that will be free with an RP. It's a giveaway lens that is probably still good for vlogging at 4k and lower resolutions. Not everybody is into photography and video the way people who attend rumor websites about the industry are. Even so, photography and video are integral to a lot of people and companies who have online workers or online business of some sort. On top of that, there are people who are only able to afford X amount of dollars and this lens is a great opportunity for them to get into FF for the price of an RP. This lens will meet all those needs at the lowest possible price of FREE.