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

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
I know a couple of divorce attorneys that are ROTFL right now...
The reason most marriages end prematurely is because the participants mistake several different emotions for actual love.

If you recognized the quote, you would know that none of the principal characters in the novel that ended with that sentence were concerned with marriage. They were concerned with the love a parent or grandparent feels for a child, the kind of love an Abbess feels for orphans and the poor, or the kind of love twin brothers might have for one another.
 

lawny13

EOS T7i
Mar 6, 2019
76
57
Maybe Canon sees the EF-M market and the RF market as two distinct groups with very little overlap?

I'm sure the folks here at this forum tend to grossly overestimate the number of photographers who started with an EF-S camera and EF-s lenses ( or at least mostly EF-S lenses ) before beginning to buy EF lenses to use with an EF-S body in anticipation of the time when they would move to an EF body. That's because the typical shooter who hangs out at these forums very likely followed that path.

But that is not the same thing as saying the typical customer who has bought either an EF-S body and lenses or the typical customer who has bought an EF body and lenses followed that path. For every one of "us", there are hundreds of folks who bought an EF-S camera and EF-S lenses (plus maybe the nifty-fifty) and never bought a FF camera or an "L" lens. For every one of us, there were (yes, "were", as in once upon a time there "were") many pros who came to their first FF digital camera directly from 135 format film.

All of that was in the past, though, before smartphones really took off as the average person's primary photo and video capturing device. So what happened and worked then for Canon may not necessarily work now for Canon.

Canon seems to see the EF-M series and the R series as two completely separate markets. Perhaps they will eventually expand the EF-M space to include more enthusiast oriented lenses, but I wouldn't bank on it anytime soon. They seem committed to pouring all of their consumer product (as opposed to medical imaging or other business units that do not encompass ILCs) R&D, production, and marketing resources into the RF line of products. At least for now, they seem to think that the current EF-M offerings will suffice for the customers at which they are aiming the EF-M products.
+1

however the M6II is an enthusiest level camera for sure. Though I am an RF user my hope for the EF-M group is that canon does show them some love as their attention pivots DSLRs to MILC.

not much is needed right? 1-3 lenses to give the sign of... “here’s a bone or two or three, out attention is mostly on RF but we will get to you”. Something like a trinity f2.8-f4 good set of lenses for EF-M would already be great, and likely sell very well, don’t you think?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
+1

however the M6II is an enthusiest level camera for sure. Though I am an RF user my hope for the EF-M group is that canon does show them some love as their attention pivots DSLRs to MILC.

not much is needed right? 1-3 lenses to give the sign of... “here’s a bone or two or three, out attention is mostly on RF but we will get to you”. Something like a trinity f2.8-f4 good set of lenses for EF-M would already be great, and likely sell very well, don’t you think?
No, I don't think a trinity set of f/2.8 or f/4 lenses for the EF-M series would sell very well at all. There would be a few EF-M owners, most of whom also own EF or RF cameras, that would be interested. But the typical EF-M buyers wouldn't give a hoot about such lenses any more than the typical Rebel buyer would have given a hoot about a new version of the T/S-E 24mm f/3.5 L back in 2009.
 
Last edited:

lawny13

EOS T7i
Mar 6, 2019
76
57
No, I don't think a trinity set of f/2.8 or f/4 lenses for the EF-M series would sell very well at all. There would be a few EF-M owners, most of whom also own RF or RF cameras, that would be interested. But the typical EF-M buyers wouldn't give a hoot about such lenses any more than the typical Rebel buyer would have given a hoot about a new version of the T/S-E 24mm f/3.5 L back in 2009.
No. Not f2.8 or f4 lenses, but variable f2.8-f4 like some of Fuji’s offerings. And targets for enthusiests. And that was just an example z canon lacks some lenses to leverage the M6II. I would consider it as a small light body and also for some sports/wild life. But it hardly has lenses to do it justice.

I think M6II users would give it hoot. Except for the lack of dual cards it is on par with a 7D line if you ask me. After all the RF lacks “reach”. My comment isn’t about existing users but attracting new ones.
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
Aug 25, 2015
1,241
512
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
Most people going FF don’t need it. It is GAS affecting them, or attraction to the high end stuff. And canon is fine with that I am sure.
Exactly. And most people who buy a APS-C EF-M mirrorless body will never need RF lenses.

Perhaps a new M7 will appear in the lineup with a larger body (LP-E6Nx battery) and a more modern APS-C sensor as an APS-C equivalent of the R6/R5.

Along with some new lenses specifically tailored for this, probably a 17-55 or so f/2.8 zoom and most importantly this:

https://www.canonwatch.com/canon-patent-100-400mm-f-5-5-7-1-lens-for-aps-c-camera/

There's no point making an APS-C R mount camera and then relying on heavy & expensive full-frame lenses when there's already a lineup specifically for APS-C on the M mount - expanding that mount is the sensible option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lawny13

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
No. Not f2.8 or f4 lenses, but variable f2.8-f4 like some of Fuji’s offerings. And targets for enthusiests. And that was just an example z canon lacks some lenses to leverage the M6II. I would consider it as a small light body and also for some sports/wild life. But it hardly has lenses to do it justice.

I think M6II users would give it hoot. Except for the lack of dual cards it is on par with a 7D line if you ask me. After all the RF lacks “reach”. My comment isn’t about existing users but attracting new ones.
Most EF-M buyers - past, present, and future - are not interested in an arsenal of lenses.

They're interested in the kit lens they buy with the camera and maybe a cheap, fast prime like the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM. Maybe they're interested in a longer focal length lens like the EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM if they didn't buy the "all-in-one" 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM as the kit lens with their camera body.

As far as being on par with the 7D line goes, I don't think any EOS M body, including the M6 Mark II, has a magnesium alloy body, the same amount of extensive weather sealing, nor a shutter with a 200,000 actuation rating. Nor does any EOS M body have the same battery life as the 7D series in addition to the lack of dual card slots.

How long do you think the external EVF attached to the hot shoe of an M6 Mark II would last on the sideline of an American football game?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

Czardoom

EOS T7i
Jan 27, 2020
73
173
Based on what the system consists of, the EOS M camera and lenses are designed for and marketed to users who want an ILC - but want it light and small. VERY small. Any lens that doesn't fit that strategy is likely not happening. The 11-22mm is an excellent lens in my opinion and covers all the wide angle needs of the target market. I had an 18-55mm (which was fine) which I ultimately replaced with the 18-150mm - which worked out excellently for my needs. I tried - and did not like using - any EF or EF-S lens with adapter on the M6 that I owned. I know some folks do so, but for me, those lenses were too large, too unbalanced, and defeated the whole purpose of the system.

I think it is far more likely that Canon will produce an R crop camera if they believe there is enough market for the 7D users going forward, rather than make a bigger M camera. If that happens, I think - based on some of the lens patents that we see (like the 17-70mm) - that RF lenses will be made that will work as "standard" lenses on the crop camera and wide angle lenses on the FF cameras. I don't think we will see any lenses made specifically for a crop R camera.

I think before Canon goes the crop R route, they will release the high megapixel FF R camera - hoping that those 7D users wanting more reach and the ability to use their EF-S lenses in crop mode will buy that camera going forward, as it should have plenty of MPs even in crop mode to be a potential successor to the 7D line.
 

ashmadux

Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Jul 28, 2011
442
24
New Yawk
photography.ashworld.com
Most EF-M buyers - past, present, and future - are not interested in an arsenal of lenses.

They're interested in the kit lens they buy with the camera and maybe a cheap, fast prime like the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM. Maybe they're interested in a longer focal length lens like the EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM if they didn't buy the "all-in-one" 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM as the kit lens with their camera body.

As far as being on par with the 7D line goes, I don't think any EOS M body, including the M6 Mark II, has a magnesium alloy body, the same amount of extensive weather sealing, nor a shutter with a 200,000 actuation rating. Nor does any EOS M body have the same battery life as the 7D series in addition to the lack of dual card slots.

How long do you think the external EVF attached to the hot shoe of an M6 Mark II would last on the sideline of an American football game?
What a a bizzare set of assumptions of the M line/users. :unsure:
I still have the original M, currently planning to sell the m50 to get the m6mkii. I really despise these kinds of uniformed assumptions about "most" users...I dont fit your user profiles at all. Yeah, crazy stuff, who would have thought?

That sad, I dont need nor want any of the cheap trash M-consumer zooms lenses on offer (f6.3...trash). The 22f2 is a gem, and there is no equivalent for rebels. The 11-22 is okay, likely will sell it too (that 1mm missing means a lot in the long run).

I've used my M's on locations shoots, portrait sessions, and more. I have a suite of EF lenses, so i adapt what I need. Amazing, right? Oh, and get this...an adapted 35mmF2 IS lives on it! WOW, huh? :cautious:

As for the body quality...yes they are not metal anymore (m50 is a bit too cheap with the plastic), but they do what they do well. All without trash lenses and pictures of cats or old tires in the street. Actual, real shoots! Im sure youre point was valid...or, um..what point was that again? :rolleyes:
 

lawny13

EOS T7i
Mar 6, 2019
76
57
Most EF-M buyers - past, present, and future - are not interested in an arsenal of lenses.

They're interested in the kit lens they buy with the camera and maybe a cheap, fast prime like the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM. Maybe they're interested in a longer focal length lens like the EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM if they didn't buy the "all-in-one" 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM as the kit lens with their camera body.

As far as being on par with the 7D line goes, I don't think any EOS M body, including the M6 Mark II, has a magnesium alloy body, the same amount of extensive weather sealing, nor a shutter with a 200,000 actuation rating. Nor does any EOS M body have the same battery life as the 7D series in addition to the lack of dual card slots.

How long do you think the external EVF attached to the hot shoe of an M6 Mark II would last on the sideline of an American football game?

I have no idea. It has been said that the M6II replaces both the M5 and M6. So I don't know if this is the case or not. I know a lot of people don't shoot with flash these days, but I do. I can't imagine having to only choose between EVF or flash. If the thing at least had a flash trigger built it... but it doesn't does it?
 

mppix

EOS 80D
Feb 13, 2018
109
78
Yeah, now that does make sense--if those are your options (which going for light and convenient, they would be).

Granted, I'd be going to crop mode doing this but I could always stick my old Tamron 18-400 (for APS-C) on the thing (with adapter--oh the humanity!) Even more range.
I find the direction of Canon, i.e. introducing low cost FF systems instead of crop systems, highly interesting.

They might be onto something because FF sensors surely came down in cost over the last 20y as waver sizes and yield improved. Also, APS-C is more or less on a dead end because you cannot significantly increase pixel density anymore without diffraction becoming a problem between f4-f5.6 (new systems live for decades...). To mitigate this, they seem to take a direction of introducing lower end FF bodies and lenses (f7.1 is better than f5.6 on APS-C).

This might kill the entire APS-C lineup outside of compact formats like EF-M if they are able to introduce an FF body around the $500 price point. Also, Canon wins because they don't have to introduce RF-S lenses (the EF-S lens lineup was never really good), and the consumer wins because you don't have to use RF lenses on a RF-S body.

This idea would also justify the f11 teles. These lenses will likely give better IQ at the same equivalent focal length than for example a Sigma 150-600 5-6.3mm on APS-C (that is not that much brighter either).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Joules and SteveC

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
852
637
I find the direction of Canon, i.e. introducing low cost FF systems instead of crop systems, highly interesting.

They might be onto something because FF sensors surely came down in cost over the last 20y as waver sizes and yield improved. Also, APS-C is more or less on a dead end because you cannot significantly increase pixel density anymore without diffraction becoming a problem between f4-f5.6 (new systems live for decades...). To mitigate this, they seem to take a direction of introducing lower end FF bodies and lenses (f7.1 is better than f5.6 on APS-C).

This might kill the entire APS-C lineup outside of compact formats like EF-M if they are able to introduce an FF body around the $500 price point. Also, Canon wins because they don't have to introduce RF-S lenses (the EF-S lens lineup was never really good), and the consumer wins because you don't have to use RF lenses on a RF-S body.

This idea would also justify the f11 teles. These lenses will likely give better IQ at the same equivalent focal length than for example a Sigma 150-600 5-6.3mm on APS-C (that is not that much brighter either).
Interesting thoughts, thank you!
 

lawny13

EOS T7i
Mar 6, 2019
76
57
I find the direction of Canon, i.e. introducing low cost FF systems instead of crop systems, highly interesting.

They might be onto something because FF sensors surely came down in cost over the last 20y as waver sizes and yield improved. Also, APS-C is more or less on a dead end because you cannot significantly increase pixel density anymore without diffraction becoming a problem between f4-f5.6 (new systems live for decades...). To mitigate this, they seem to take a direction of introducing lower end FF bodies and lenses (f7.1 is better than f5.6 on APS-C).

This might kill the entire APS-C lineup outside of compact formats like EF-M if they are able to introduce an FF body around the $500 price point. Also, Canon wins because they don't have to introduce RF-S lenses (the EF-S lens lineup was never really good), and the consumer wins because you don't have to use RF lenses on a RF-S body.

This idea would also justify the f11 teles. These lenses will likely give better IQ at the same equivalent focal length than for example a Sigma 150-600 5-6.3mm on APS-C (that is not that much brighter either).
Though I agree. You will get push back from people. Some simply want continual gains.

Like a sensor with increased high ISO performance coupled with a f7.1 lens might perform on par with a previous gen sensor with a f6.3 lens. This gain and loss might irritate some who just want f6.3 lenses. So to speak.

The same goes for a lot of other gear that will be introduced. However I think I see and get what canon is doing.As usual it will irritate people and they will complain, but in the end canon will probably achieve the balancing act.

Take this 24-105 with the f7.1 on the long end vs the f4. Some will complain about the f7.1, and the fact that the aperture ring doubles as the focus ring. I get what they are saying but I would practically point out they can get the f4, RIGHT? But then they will complain about the price, size, weight of the f4. They would almost go as far as suggest canon should produce a third, to their liking and price. As silly as that actually is.

The fact though is that in the end it is canon that will have these options. They are masters at market differentiation as far as I am concerned.

Though Sony has pushed MILC tech, I always say that canon will catch up in a split second when unleashed from the DSLR chains and they will differentiate. While Sony essentially did the same ol’ same ol‘. It you look at their lenses they are just DSLR equivalents with whatever gains MILC allows. Gains that nikon and canon stated they would also have right out the gate.

So ya... we will see it. Market and price differentiation. Gear differentiation, and a new take on everything.