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

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
851
637

Done here.
It took a little bit of digging, but I found this (the uncorrected 24-240) https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/ins...1/Distortion-24mm-Uncorrected-Raw-533x400.jpg

It looks worse, of course, but it's projecting a much wider image. So one should look at the central APS-C sized part of it. Just eyeballing the innermost 1/1.6 of it at 24mm it appears to be comparable to the Tamron--I suppose one could take that image and crop it down, then make it the same size as the other one...but I see little point. Of course if you compare it CORRECTED to the Tammy uncorrected, it's going to kick the Tamron's ass.

The designers at Tamron clearly expected it to be zoomed in a lot more than zoomed out; the grid looks pretty darned good at 400 mm.

I don't know about sharpness, etc, but from a sheer distortion standpoint I would prefer the Tammy--after all it's a 22x zoom, vs the 24-240.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,570
485
Davidson, NC
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.
It's all computational photography, so it is a matter of degree. Nobody looks at the little Bayer thingies. It's not like the little silver halide clumps we had on film. I've been used to this for quite a while. Long ago Canon decided to use software corrections instead of adding another couple of pounds of glass. I think it is a good tradeoff. I had a couple of S-series cameras and now am on my second G camera for traveling. The quality that can come out of a camera that fits in my pocket is remarkable. A lot goes on for them to turn out JPEGs, but I almost always shoot Raw.

The corrections take place on the computer instead. On the wide end, there is still sometimes noticeable barrel distortion and vignetting. I can still tweak them manually in ACR. Sometimes leaving in a bit of the distortion looks more natural than conforming to the grid lines, and a bit of vignetting is often desirable. It offends me not at all that Canon uses the same approach for lenses costing hundreds and hundreds of dollars. It's not like there were some pristine pixels or clumps of silver salts that got lost in the process.

None of the RF lenses are for me. I'm not ready to give up the OVF. If I bought another body at this point, it would be a reduced-price 5D IV. I might have ordered it already if it had a tilty screen. The G5X II takes care of my mirrorless needs for now, and maybe it or a successor will do that for me for years to come. There is nothing inherently snobbish in stating that a particular piece of gear is not for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,029
940
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.
++++ This is a lens that will be free with an RP. It's a giveaway lens...
++++ This lens will meet all those needs at the lowest possible price of FREE.

A.M. : no, it won’t be given away for free. Let’s be realistic here . It will be offered at the full RRP included in kit or with a very minor discount of $50 -ish.

The RRP of the lens however:

The Canon RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM is officially priced at £459.99 / €549.99 / $399.99 in the UK, Europe and the USA respectively.
 

Joules

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 16, 2017
817
861
Hamburg, Germany
If it turns out to be better then I will wonder why Canon's 10X zoom distorts worse than tammy's 22+X zoom
That's pretty simple. The 24-240mm is a FF lens and goes much wider than the Tamron. Being a FF lens with basically the same F-numbers means it also has over a stop of an advantage in ISO across the range. The Tamron on the other hand has a big reach advantage. You are really comparing apples and oranges.

Keep in mind these new lenses have the strong distortion only at the wide end. Wide lenses are difficult. But compared to not having to option to go as wide, like with your Tamron, that is still a greater degree of flexibility. And they offer it at prices that are very reasonable, especially as kit. I don't get the complaints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
992
202
I said the issue you raised 1. has no qualitative impact for the target market/the way they shoot
The target market you think this lens is targeted for.

2. you have not demonstrated anything to the contrary, whether considering explicitly in this thread, or in any other post you have made.
Cicala showed loss of resolution for a lens with less distortion. This one ought to lose more.

Considering the matter at hand is a particular lens on a particular mount
The mount is immaterial. The discussion is about the lens' IQ.

and what it looks like, and your opinion is contrary to that of reviews/etc.
Oh, you may rely on reviews, but I must actually use the equipment in hand? That's double standard.
 

geffy

EOS T7i
Jun 24, 2019
63
42
canon make great glass at a price and make do glass at a price, the key is price, it would be better to buy a tamron
 

Dantana

EOS RP
Jan 29, 2013
287
141
Los Angeles, CA
www.flickr.com
++++ This is a lens that will be free with an RP. It's a giveaway lens...
++++ This lens will meet all those needs at the lowest possible price of FREE.

A.M. : no, it won’t be given away for free. Let’s be realistic here . It will be offered at the full RRP included in kit or with a very minor discount of $50 -ish.

The RRP of the lens however:

The Canon RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM is officially priced at £459.99 / €549.99 / $399.99 in the UK, Europe and the USA respectively.
Nobody will buy this lens for full price. It's currently being offered by Adorama with the RP for $100 more than body only. It's a throw in kit lens. Maybe the add on goes up to $200 at some point. It still makes the camera usable right out of the box for someone with no other glass. It's the full frame version of the 18-55 that ships with a Rebel. It's not meant to be sold on its own.
 

koenkooi

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
1,011
790
Nobody will buy this lens for full price. It's currently being offered by Adorama with the RP for $100 more than body only. It's a throw in kit lens. Maybe the add on goes up to $200 at some point. It still makes the camera usable right out of the box for someone with no other glass. It's the full frame version of the 18-55 that ships with a Rebel. It's not meant to be sold on its own.
I had the reverse with the EF-M15-45mm. I wanted that lens, but I already had a camera, so I didn't want the kit. Then I realized that the grey market kit of the M10+15-45 was €5 more than just the lens. I sold the M10 a few years later for much more :)
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,437
So a lens aimed at the casual user doesn't have manual focus but does have programmable control ring... That doesn't seem like the right option to offer.
No, it has the choice of either manual focus or a control ring at just the flick of a switch..


Users need to go through menu if they want to switch from AF to MF and vice-versa. That switch just selects whether the 2nd ring will be used a control ring or focus control. Removing AF On/Off switch is the stupidest decision on non-L RF mount lenses. Saving pennies on that switch doesnt make sense.
It's not like all STM lenses do not have the ability to use manual focus override when AF is turned 'on'.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,437
Well, LOL. Thank you.
however at 550 euro or even USD 400 a pop, seems a bit to rich for what it is.
US$250? Yeah, may be... it will get to that price point on grey market rather quickly, I think.

I mean the R6 kit.
The RP + this lens is currently only $100 more than the RP body only.

20200624ss2.png
 
Last edited:

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
851
637
That's pretty simple. The 24-240mm is a FF lens and goes much wider than the Tamron. Being a FF lens with basically the same F-numbers means it also has over a stop of an advantage in ISO across the range. The Tamron on the other hand has a big reach advantage. You are really comparing apples and oranges.

Keep in mind these new lenses have the strong distortion only at the wide end. Wide lenses are difficult. But compared to not having to option to go as wide, like with your Tamron, that is still a greater degree of flexibility. And they offer it at prices that are very reasonable, especially as kit. I don't get the complaints.
That's why I was trying to compare the inner part (not the whole) image from the 24-240 to the full image from the Tamron--to correct for the difference in size of the sensor.

Mistakenly comparing the whole sensor to the whole sensor, the 24-240 would absolutely SUCK next to the Tamron.
 

lawny13

EOS T7i
Mar 6, 2019
76
57
It is cheaper and reasonably smaller. Sure it is interesting. But more to the EOS RP buyers.
If I was going for an R6 (expected north of 2000 $/€) I wouldn't grab that combo.
For me the f/7.1 @105mm would be the dealbreaker and I would definetly prefer the f/4 lens.
Then get the f4. That is why we have options.

It is useful to try to have a big picture attitude while canon hasn’t yet finished its lens line up.

If we consider that canon may very well be done with APS-C (oly I going down, market is shrinking). Then this move makes sense.

For which people might this be Lens for? Those who would buy an entry level or mid level dslr and kit lens. Except this lens is sharper and better than most kit lenses for canon DSLRs.F6.3 isn’t too far off from f7.1 either. Now is it.

I have a feeling that those who would buy an f4 lens over this f4-7.1 lens would also likely buy the f4 over a f4-6.3 version. My guess is that canon thinks that as well.

Howwever, this lens might still be good for some experienced photographers. You can take this on long trips, along with 1-2 small primes for low light.

Also let’s not forget we have yet to see the AF capabilities and sensor performance of the new cameras. The low light focus capabilities of the R is extremely good, showing that the sensor can work surprisingly well with little light. ISO and bokeh difference between f6.3 and f7.1 is small.
 

koenkooi

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
1,011
790
[..]
If we consider that canon may very well be done with APS-C (oly I going down, market is shrinking). Then this move makes sense.
[..]
I'd phrase that as "Canon may very well be making APS-C exclusive to EF-M". From the various sales reports the M line seems to be doing very well, even if it doesn't have many 'exciting' lenses for us internet snobs :)
 

Joules

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 16, 2017
817
861
Hamburg, Germany
That's why I was trying to compare the inner part (not the whole) image from the 24-240 to the full image from the Tamron--to correct for the difference in size of the sensor.

Mistakenly comparing the whole sensor to the whole sensor, the 24-240 would absolutely SUCK next to the Tamron.
Good point. But, if you crop to compare the inner part, there's still a loss in resolution.

I think the fair comparison would be if the 24-240 mm was zoomed in to match the FoV of the Tamron on crop. On a Canon, that should be 29 mm.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,577
2,114
120
If we consider that canon may very well be done with APS-C (oly I going down, market is shrinking). Then this move makes sense.
If we acknowledge the fact that Canon make the best selling APS-C system on earth it makes comments like these seem rather foolish.

M system is APS-C, R system is 135 format, two systems, two sensor sizes, no crossover and no confusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dantana and Joules

lawny13

EOS T7i
Mar 6, 2019
76
57
If we acknowledge the fact that Canon make the best selling APS-C system on earth it makes comments like these seem rather foolish.

M system is APS-C, R system is 135 format, two systems, two sensor sizes, no crossover and no confusion.
I should have elaborated. I don’t see a RF crop. EF-M as you state is completely segmented. It might not exist as far as RF is concerned. And it’s purpose is completely different.
 

lawny13

EOS T7i
Mar 6, 2019
76
57
I'd phrase that as "Canon may very well be making APS-C exclusive to EF-M". From the various sales reports the M line seems to be doing very well, even if it doesn't have many 'exciting' lenses for us internet snobs :)
I know. I should have been more clear, on DSLR you had the EF and EF-S and the link between them.

Here even though canon has the EF-M mount is I completely separate from the RF. Absolutely no lens interchangeability. You choose a mount and go for it.

Before people still had the choice of getting EF lenses to “upgrade“ later one. So you had the rebels as the dirt cheap option and lineups all the way to the 1D system. Now the RF just has RF. And though cameras have gotten cheaper, FF is sill not rebel cheap. Canon is obviously trying to extend the RF down market as well. You choose between the two different design intents.

1. Go small, with the EF-M
2. Go with the “superior” RF lines. But the entry can be daunting. 1k for the RF body and 1k for the 24-105 f4 isn’t exactly cheap and light.

With the RP and 24-105 f4-7.1 at least you have cheaper, good IQ anyway, and light and relatively small.

some of us snobs (me included) would prefer the f4 over this lens. But translate everything to how it would be on crop and you have f2.8-5 equivalent on crop, both in terms of light gathering and DOF. If, you look at it that way it isn't so bad.

So to me it is the AF performance that is of concern. That is already good on the R. I have shot video at f11, meaning that it would be focusing with the aperture stopped down and it did well. I can only guess that the focus will be even better on the new cameras.


End of the day... do any of us really think that canon hasn’t thought this through. I for one am aiming to buy the 100-500 and that has a f7.1 on the long end. When I think about it, it still expect it to perform better than my sigma 150-600 and will likely be sharper, faster the focus, and of course lighter and smaller to boot, And if it also does better close focus it would be icing on the cake.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,577
2,114
120
I should have elaborated. I don’t see a RF crop. EF-M as you state is completely segmented. It might not exist as far as RF is concerned. And it’s purpose is completely different.
I agree, I do not see a crop RF ever. I believe Canon have laid out what they see are the advantages of the crop camera and lenses, size, and believe pretty much all previous EF buyers are going to be into FF with a wide variety of body specs and features and price points. Meanwhile we will also get a similarly wide choice of lenses from bargain non L kit zooms to the highest quality fast L primes.

With the frame rates and pixel density coming out I see no real justification for the concept of RF APS-C, especially;ly if we get crop modes in the high pixel density bodies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lawny13