A look at the Canon RF 24-105 F2.8L IS USM Z MTF

[Brikna]

5) Missing the semi-macro feature that the old Canon 24-105s used to have. They were typically around a 0.5 magnification ratio, where this isn't as good (around .1 to .3 through the zoom range). Respectable at .3, but not as good.

I can't recall any old 24-105 lenses that had 0.5x macro reproduction - which lens are you referring to?

The only Canon 24-105 lens known to me that has 0.5x reproduction (and that only at 24mm and only with the use of the MF function) is the current RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM that came out in 2020.

 

[danfaz]

I can't recall any old 24-105 lenses that had 0.5x macro reproduction - which lens are you referring to?

The only Canon 24-105 lens known to me that has 0.5x reproduction (and that only at 24mm and only with the use of the MF function) is the current RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM that came out in 2020.

Yep, the 1st L was .23x, the Mark II was .24x, the current L is .24x, and this new one is .29x

 

[Brikna]

Yep, the 1st L was .23x, the Mark II was .24x, the current L is .24x, and this new one is .29x

Yes, you only forgot to mention EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM with max. magnification 0.3x.

 

[AJ]

I need a high optical quality lens for mountain hikes, lens changing is never safe or easy in these environments.

May I ask why it's so hard to switch lenses? I hike/ski in the Canadian Rockies, and I switch lenses multiple times each day. Rain, shine, or puking snow.
I carry an ultrawide for landscape, plus something more telephoto. The telephoto lens depends on what I'm looking for - wildflowers (90 mm macro), skiing action (200 mm range), or wildlife/birds (long focal lengths).
A typical setup around here is something like 15-35/2.8 or 14-35/24, plus a 70-200. This leaves a gap between 35 and 70 mm which to most is no big deal, but potentially could be filled with a 50 mm prime.
That said, a 24-105/2.8 would be a sweet setup. Heavy, expensive, but nice.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't see any downsides to this lens other than price and wth should I do with my 24-70mm?

MFD is practically the same as the f/4 version. One lens to rule them...

Well, it's rather large and heavy...

 

[scyrene]

3) $3k is an awful lot of money for an f/2.8 lens. I have a suspicion this will be one that sees sales more often than others in a year

Not compared with the 100-300, or the 400 f/2.8 for that matter!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not compared with the 100-300, or the 400 f/2.8 for that matter!

Yeah, but it's like 10 times more than the 28/2.8. It's a lot bigger and heavier, too. What a waste of money!

 

[[email protected]]

quite curious to see how it carries on a PD capture clip. broadly with the 28-70 without battery grip its not acceptable. and too heavy for the belt. my wife would not hike with me if i'd carry a cotton carrier

My wife shamed me out of using my cotton carrier years ago. Now - after I got her into nature photography - she totes around the 100-500, and asked me what sort of clip system she should use. I very much enjoyed bringing up the cotton carrier from the basement and watching her face.

Not that she ever even attempted to use it. It's true that it's not a great system for grown women.

 

[scyrene]

wth should I do with my 24-70mm?

Give it to me?

 

[[email protected]]

I can't recall any old 24-105 lenses that had 0.5x macro reproduction - which lens are you referring to?

The only Canon 24-105 lens known to me that has 0.5x reproduction (and that only at 24mm and only with the use of the MF function) is the current RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM that came out in 2020.

Brikna, thanks for pointing that out. I was thinking of the old EF 24-70 f/4 L "macro" which had a 0.7 reproduction ratio. I mistakenly remembered that old one as a 24-105. -tig

 

[Del Paso]

May I ask why it's so hard to switch lenses? I hike/ski in the Canadian Rockies, and I switch lenses multiple times each day. Rain, shine, or puking snow.
I carry an ultrawide for landscape, plus something more telephoto. The telephoto lens depends on what I'm looking for - wildflowers (90 mm macro), skiing action (200 mm range), or wildlife/birds (long focal lengths).
A typical setup around here is something like 15-35/2.8 or 14-35/24, plus a 70-200. This leaves a gap between 35 and 70 mm which to most is no big deal, but potentially could be filled with a 50 mm prime.
That said, a 24-105/2.8 would be a sweet setup. Heavy, expensive, but nice.

I presently carry in the mountains:
Leica M + 18, 24, 28, 35, 50 and 75mm
EOS 5 D or R + 24 TSE, 60 macro, 100-400, extenders, binos etc...
On extremely narrow and rocky paths, especially when it's windy, changing lenses is no pleasure. My idea is getting along with still 2 bodies, but without 28, 55, 75 . Leica Ms do not have any sensor cleaning, imagine how many skyes need spot removal when back home. Using mostly the 35 Summilux on the M will hugely simplify my task. No, lens changing is normally no difficult task, except in some unstable situations. But spot removal, this I HATE!
OK, I could decide to use only EOS cameras, but, believe me, I'd definitely miss the Summiluxes.

 

[AJ]

I presently carry in the mountains):
Leica M + 18, 24, 28, 35, 50 and 75mm
EOS 5 D or R + 24 TSE, 60 macro, 100-400, extenders, binos etc...
On extremely narrow and rocky paths, especially when it's windy, changing lenses is no pleasure. My idea is getting along with still 2 bodies, but without 28, 55, 75 . Leica Ms do not have any sensor cleaning, imagine how many skyes need spot removal when back home. Using mostly the 35 Summilux on the M will hugely simplify my task. No, lens changing is normally no difficult task, except in some unstable situations. But spot removal, this I HATE!
OK, I could decide to use only EOS cameras, but, believe me, I'd definitely miss the Summiluxes.

So the issue is changing lenses on the Leica gear, due to lack of sensor cleaning? I can see your point.
Could you carry Canon body with a 14 or 15 to 35 mm zoom, plus a 70-200, and fill the gap with your Leica 50 mm?
Or, R-mount ultrawide, plus your 100-400, and again fill the 35-100 mm gap with your Leica gear?
This could lighten your load and reduce lens swaps.

 

[Walrus]

Also, I have the sense that if it wasn't a "Z" video-oriented-featured lens, then it would be 25 percent less in cost. Feel like I'm paying a lot for something I won't use.

Exactly. For (rich) hybrid shooters is a must, but from a pure photographic standpoint:
- An aperture ring that works only in video; will work on photo, but with none of the already released bodies. So tech, development, barrel space, and material for a ring I can't use
- The Z function is yet again development, mechanics and electronics, etc, certainly with some impact on cost, weight and lenght
- The thing is uber long, 20cm, same as an EF 70-700; seems to have been done just for video purposes, so you don't unbalance rigs, steadycams etc while zooming. But if it was a photo-oriented lens, it would probably be extending barrel, so saving a great deal of space in the bag, around 5/6cm (the 28-70 for reference is 14cm, the 24-70 is 12,5cm), which is the difference between having the lens stored vertically, taking small space, and storing the lens horizontally like the 70-200, so taking between 2 and 3 slots in a bag/backpack.

It would certainly still be long, huge, heavy and expensive even if it would have been done exclusively photo oriented; but as you do, I think it would certainly have been a touch less in all those categories.

 

[Act444]

To me, the f4 version is just ok. From my recent experience with it, I don’t love it optically but the flexibility of that range cannot be denied. The 24-70 2.8 offers much better sharpness and clarity, but then of course you lose the reach. In fact, it’s been my experience that 24-105mm lenses in general have underwhelmed me from an IQ standpoint.

Given that the size and weight constraints were loosened considerably in the design of this lens, I’m curious if it can hold up to both the 24-70 and 28-70 in that regard.

 

[Software2]

The f4 has been part of my "if you can only bring two lenses" kit for a long time. I recently took a trip where I tried out the 24-70 f2.8 instead, and while I loved the better quality, there were definitely lots of times I missed that extra range. Having (virtually) no compromise on range or quality made this an instant preorder. What's an extra pound when you don't have to worry about not having the right lens for the situation?

 

[peters]

I don't see any downsides to this lens other than price and wth should I do with my 24-70mm?

MFD is practically the same as the f/4 version. One lens to rule them...

Weight and size is for travel certainly quite a reason.
Other than that, in the professional area, there is literaly no downside. Image Quality is even a bit better...
Price is indeed relative. I guess that such a lense can easily be used for 10 years =)

 

[EricN]

Richard, another fantastic summary. Maximilian, I'm exactly that guy comparing it to my 28-70 f/2 and wondering which I'd like more. All the camera companies have long given photographers the devil's bargain of using a 24-105 that had "junior varsity" optics versus a "pro" 24-70. This one is interesting because the optics are much better.

Now, I find myself again in a similar position. I have the very nice 28-70 f/2 (and it's already pretty chonky), so would moving to the 24-105 f/2.8 make me happier for the greater range in exchange for the loss of a stop?

Pros:
0) Range is often limited at the long end with the 28-70, I find, for the way I shoot, so the added range would definitely be exploited

Cons:
0) Would lose a stop of light
1) MTF charts show the 28-70 much better on contrast, and - particularly - much less astigmatism (distance between the blue solid and dotted lines)
2) I can fit the 28-70 in a single lens bay in my backpack, even though it's a chonkster, while the 24-105 would take up two, fitting sideways
3) $3k is an awful lot of money for an f/2.8 lens. I have a suspicion this will be one that sees sales more often than others in a year
4) I have the 135 f/1.8 and a nice, cheap 85 f/1.4, and this is a good excuse to use them paired with the 28-70
5) Missing the semi-macro feature that the old Canon 24-105s used to have. They were typically around a 0.5 magnification ratio, where this isn't as good (around .1 to .3 through the zoom range). Respectable at .3, but not as good.


... so I think I'll not sell the f/2 lens and get the new 24-105 f/2.8. But I might have if I was shooting the 24-105 f/4 previously instead. Also, I have the sense that if it wasn't a "Z" video-oriented-featured lens, then it would be 25 percent less in cost. Feel like I'm paying a lot for something I won't use.

This is almost exactly what I thought. Additionally, about it would cost less than the total price of 24-70mm f/2.8 plus a 70-200mm f/2.8, but you're giving up 100-200mm.

 

[Skux]

I love my 28-70mm but I am seriously tempted. 70mm has always felt too short for headshots and portraits, hitting 105mm replaces a standalone 85mm or 100mm and reduces the need to switch to a 70-200mm. With a high megapixel sensor you might be able to get away with just cropping in for telephoto shots, clients won't even be able to tell haha. And 24mm makes all the difference in smaller rooms.

 

[scyrene]

I got the original EF 24-105 as the kit lens with my 5D3 in 2012 and while it has never blown me away, whenever I restricted myself to using it (to save space/changing lenses) it always outperformed my expectations. I still have it and it works even better with the R6 because it gains a bit of extra IS. I'm sure this new one will be amazing, though I doubt I'll ever own one.

 

[Cariboucoach]

My wife shamed me out of using my cotton carrier years ago. Now - after I got her into nature photography - she totes around the 100-500, and asked me what sort of clip system she should use. I very much enjoyed bringing up the cotton carrier from the basement and watching her face.

Not that she ever even attempted to use it. It's true that it's not a great system for grown women.

I have watched a youtube video that "The Snapchick" did. She endorses and uses a cotton carrier.